What is a saint?

[The_Fool]

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?

I use the term “militant saint” to mean a member of the Church Militant(Ecclesia Militans). The Catholic Church actually does use those terms to describe different stages, but I can’t find it in the Catechism right now. I do know that the terms used are ecclesia militans, ecclesia triumphans, and ecclesia penitens. They are respectively, militant, triumphant, and suffering. If anyone else can locate where the specific terms are used, I would appreciate it. And so you know, a canonized saint is an officially recognized glorified saint, that the Church considers no longer suffering, but triumphant. They would not be considered different stages, just different levels of recognition. For example, some people believe that the last Bishop of Rome is a glorified saint, and he might be, but the Church will not officially recognize him as one until he is canonized. Does that mean he is not at the final stage, no, because the Church won’t say he is not there either.

PJM- I was old by someone I take to be knowledgeable that those who cannot understand right and wrong are living saints in that they cannot sin. You now understand my confusion, I think.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Not at all. The notion of holiness in the Bible is IIRC that of being “set apart” (that is what “Pharisee” means). The hagioi (=saints), on earth are those set apart by God for Himself; they are consecrated by Him to His own purposes. The word is Greek, the thinking is Hebraic. No personal holiness is implied - a sinful saint is not a contradiction in terms, because the emphasis on what God does, & not on the subjective character of the saint. (Saints should not sin, but if they do, they do not cease to be saints, for that reason; they are not the centre of attention.) The emphasis in the post-Biblical use of the word is on the subjective character of the saint, which is why the saint is a Saint.​

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

Gabriel of 12;

A saint (or holy man) on earth falls 7 seven times a day , thank’s be to God for the ministry of reconciliation (confession). The Saints in heaven are praying and interceding on our behalf in heaven, and the angels take their prayers for us as a pleasing incense to the nostrils of God.

God is God of the Living not the dead, for whether one is awake or asleep they are all alive to God who loves us. Just ask Moses, Elijah and Enoch? They gave witness at the trasfiguration of Jesus in the Gospels, and Enoch along with Elijah was assumed into heaven, just like Jesus Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary of whom Jesus most honored, that his Angel Gabriel who “hailed” Mary as the (Royalty) Queen of angels.

 

[Bookworm88]

Friend part of the confusion you seem to have lies in mixing Catholic and non-catholic beliefs on the issue of Salvation

Many non-catholic christians hold a view of Salvation that is actually anti-biblical They pick and chose a very few bible verses that allow them to think (actually it’s NOT thinking at all) that “Once saved, always saved”! This theology is rediculious and not supported if one uses ALL of God’s Word! It completly ignore the Divine Nature of God and God’s necessary Fairness and Justice.

Wow. You start out calling me “friend,” and then the next paragraph you tell me I’m not thinking. I couldn’t tell if you were purposely trying to be rude or just doing so without realizing it. Those of us who believe in OSAS do believe in using ALL of God’s Word. That’s why we believe the verses that tell us we are eternally secure, even if there are few of them. They are a part of God’s Word. We then combine that teaching with the verses that tell us to work, and thus understand works to be part of our growth process of looking more like Christ every day, rather than a process to GET salvation that God describes as something we already have once we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. Thus I don’t see my position as ignoring God’s divine nature at all, since His nature is one of faithfulness to His promises. Go ahead an believe that my theology is ridiculous, but when you make that claim in a post, you only tempt someone else to say that your theology is ridicuous to them, and what purpose is served by throwing our accusations of ridiculousness?

 

[Bookworm88]

Not at all. The notion of holiness in the Bible is IIRC that of being “set apart” (that is what “Pharisee” means). The hagioi (=saints), on earth are those set apart by God for Himself; they are consecrated by Him to His own purposes. The word is Greek, the thinking is Hebraic. No personal holiness is implied - a sinful saint is not a contradiction in terms, because the emphasis on what God does, & not on the subjective character of the saint. (Saints should not sin, but if they do, they do not cease to be saints, for that reason; they are not the centre of attention.) The emphasis in the post-Biblical use of the word is on the subjective character of the saint, which is why the saint is a Saint.​

Well, this is certainly the way I would think “saint” would be defined. but it seems to conflict with the way that PJM is describing the term. Am I just mistakenly seeing a difference between your thinking and his?

 

[PJM]

=Bookworm88;4982863]Well, this is certainly the way I would think “saint” would be defined. but it seems to conflict with the way that PJM is describing the term. Am I just mistakenly seeing a difference between your thinking and his?

Dear friend,

Being a small “s” saint on earth in no way implies that one no longer has a tendency to sin.

A “Glorified Saint and a Canonized Saint” seem to me to be synomous terms in this appliction.

One should not be Glorified without first being recogonized by the Church as being in heaven, and even then care needs to be use to maintain Reverence, and not broach Worship of the Saint, something we are not permitted to do.

 

[Bookworm88]

Dear friend,

Being a small “s” saint on earth in no way implies that one no longer has a tendency to sin.

Do you think Gottle of Geer’s explanation was implying that people who are small “s” saints would not have a tendency to sin? I didn’t see his explanation as saying that, and I never said that, so I’m not sure why you bring up this point.

A “Glorified Saint and a Canonized Saint” seem to me to be synomous terms in this appliction.

One should not be Glorified without first being recogonized by the Church as being in heaven, and even then care needs to be use to maintain Reverence, and not broach Worship of the Saint, something we are not permitted to do.

I think there is a slight difference between Glorified saint and Canonized saint, and your paragraph here helps me to put the difference in words. Please let me know if I’m understanding correctly. My main reason for being on the forum is to learn what Catholics really mean when they use specific terms that I might be using in a different way.

The three catagories were Glorified saint, Suffering saint, and Militant saint. Those three catagories are to be understood as being seen from God’s perspective. God knows for sure which believers have gone from suffering to glory/heaven. God knows which believers are militant, but since militant only applies to those still on earth, we can know as well. 9Or can we?) The idea of canonization would thus refer to OUR perspective. If a saint has gone through the canonization process, then WE know that they have become a Glorifed saint rather than still being a suffering saint. Wait a minute. I just thought of something. It could also mean that WE know they have become a Glorified saint with ever having been a suffering saint. (quick question: Do Catholics believe that Canonized saints have skipped purgatory, or does that make no difference at all?)

So PJM, when You make your distinction between small “s” saint and large “s” saint, do you believe only Canonized saints are large “s” saints, and thus, because we know they have been Glorified by God, we can then glorify/reverence/pray-to them? Would you use a small “s” for someone in Purgatory? Would you pray to someone in Purgatory?

I take it from your previous posts that you believe a saint is something we are trying to become while here on earth, so we should always use small “s” for that, AND that we go back and forth from being saints to not being saints depending on our own personal holiness while on earth. Is that correct? Gottle of Geer was saying that we could be called small “s” saints even if we sin. “Saints should not sin, but if they do, they do not cease to be saints.” Do you agree with that quote from Gottle of Geer?

 

[The_Fool]

I’m not PJM, but I’ll try to answer questions that look like anyone can answer. Someone correct me if I’m wrong or tell me to put a sock in it.

(quick question: Do Catholics believe that Canonized saints have skipped purgatory, or does that make no difference at all?)

A member of the Church Triumphant can skip purgatory, but it’s ultimately up to God. The Church has only listed three people, to my knowledge, who skipped Purgatory: Jesus, Mary, and the gentleman carried up by chariots of flame whose name I cannot presently recall. I believe that it would make a difference if a canonized saint skipped Purgatory, because it implies that they go in that very special category with the three above, or circumstances were such that they went straight up, but when you think about it the chances of that happening are down right amazing.

I would. Nothing prevents a soul in Purgatory from praying on our behalf, or the Lord from hearing their prayers just as nothing prevents the living from doing the same. The simplest prayer to a saint is, “Name, pray for us/me/him/her/etc.” When you think about it in that manner, we can pray to anyone. I can pray to you, Bookworm, pray for me. Thus, we can pray to someone in Purgatory. When my grandmother dies, she can still watch out for me even if she isn’t in Heaven yet, and I think she can hear me when I ask for her help or intercede on her behalf. Hmm, that went a little off topic, but did that help you understand how the system works better?

[/QUOTE]

 

[PJM]

=Bookworm88;4984069]

I think there is a slight difference between Glorified saint and Canonized saint, and your paragraph here helps me to put the difference in words. Please let me know if I’m understanding correctly. My main reason for being on the forum is to learn what Catholics really mean when they use specific terms that I might be using in a different way.

The three catagories were Glorified saint, Suffering saint, and Militant saint. Those three catagories are to be understood as being seen from God’s perspective. God knows for sure which believers have gone from suffering to glory/heaven. God knows which believers are militant, but since militant only applies to those still on earth, we can know as well. 9Or can we?) The idea of canonization would thus refer to OUR perspective. If a saint has gone through the canonization process, then WE know that they have become a Glorifed saint rather than still being a suffering saint. Wait a minute. I just thought of something. It could also mean that WE know they have become a Glorified saint with ever having been a suffering saint. (quick question: Do Catholics believe that Canonized saints have skipped purgatory, or does that make no difference at all?)

Wow, that’s a lot of thoughtfull questions. Thanks!

A “Glorified Saint” is one who by exemplary life and the process of Canonazation is proclaimed to be in Heaven. One of the steps in the process, is that mutiple miracales must be attributed to this Saint and be carefully verified. So, it’s is safe to say that they are in Heaven. as to the issue of direct passage to Heaven or a period of purification, only God Knows.(Mk 4: 24-25)

A “Suffering saint” is one in a purgative state, and indeed only God knows when they attain the necessary state of Perfected Purification. Which is why the Church urges us to offer prayers, Masses and sacrifices for them to speed their journey. (2 Mac. Chap. 12)

The “church Militiant” consist of those of us still on earth who are in “full communion” (completef fidelity with the Pope), and are working “out our Salvation” in, with and through Jesus Christ. Normally we are not refered to as “saints,” all though one could do so.

So PJM, when You make your distinction between small “s” saint and large “s” saint, do you believe only Canonized saints are large “s” saints, and thus, because we know they have been Glorified by God, we can then glorify/reverence/pray-to them? Would you use a small “s” for someone in Purgatory? Would you pray to someone in Purgatory?

It is not a matter of “personal” belief as it is about adhereing to Church Teaching. Yes only Canonized Saints are “Glorifed / recogonized” as haveing passed the test, and thus commonly used as intercessors between us and God. That is the function of Canonazation.

However, just as the Church encourages us to pray for all those in the Purgative state, we can still ask them too to “pray for us.” After all, they too will be saints! And yes, all saints either in heaven or in route to heaven, except those canonized would be small “s” saints.

I take it from your previous posts that you believe a saint is something we are trying to become while here on earth, so we should always use small “s” for that, AND that we go back and forth from being saints to not being saints depending on our own personal holiness while on earth. Is that correct? Gottle of Geer was saying that we could be called small “s” saints even if we sin. “Saints should not sin, but if they do, they do not cease to be saints.” Do you agree with that quote from Gottle of Geer?

Yes I agree with the fact that saints while on earth do not lose their title of “saint -church -Militant” so long as they do not commit a “Mortal sin”, which are so grevious as to completely sever our personal relationship with Christ until and unless we Confess (Jn.20:23) and repent and convert, which means to return to a “holy way of life.” (1 Jn. 5:13-17)

Everyone who dies with unconfessed and unrepented Mortal sin, will go to Hell! It is one’s personal decession, and God simply affirms it in truth and Justice.

Indeed the very reason that we were Created by a Loving God, is so that we could Love Him Back, which we do by following all of His Commandments, practice charity, and obey the Church leaders that He has given to us. It is the proper use of our freewills and intellects, that allow us to Know, Love, and Serve God, and that is their “perfect application.”

Love and prayers,

 

[John7]

I always thought that **Christ in me **makes me one of the ‘agious’…Col 1:27,
“To whom God would make known
what is the riches of the glory of this mystery
among the Gentiles which is
**Christ in you **
the hope of glory”

 

[The_Fool]

I always thought that **Christ in me **makes me one of the ‘agious’…Col 1:27,
“To whom God would make known
what is the riches of the glory of this mystery
among the Gentiles which is
**Christ in you **
the hope of glory”

The full sentence in my NAB is, “But now it as been manifested to his holy ones, to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.” To my understanding, this sentence calls Christ in us the riches of the glory of “this” mystery. Alternatively, Christ in us is the “mystery hidden from ages and from generations past” mentioned in the previous sentence. I’m trying to figure out what this has to do with agious, but please explain if I do not properly understand.

 

[PJM]

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.

Friend,I certainly did not intend to insult anyone.

You think it’s biblical, and I find that it is "anti-biblical"

I hold this position because of some understanding of who and what God is. God is and has to be All everything Good.", right? So let me ask you are being “fair” being “just” good things? Of course they are

This verse expalins correctly that we all are sinners.

1 Jn. 8: “8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.**If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins **and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”

This proves that their are More serious (Mortal sin) and less serious sin we term "veniel."

1 Jn. 5: 16 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Now lets say you steal a candy bar, and murder someone.

Are we to understand that God is going to view both sins as equal? If so how can He be a Just and Fair God? He can’t. And if we claim that he automatically forgives “all sins” past, present and future; what is the incentive not to sin? What is the purpose of the Commandments? Where is the JUSTICE?

** Jesus Himself tell us**

Put asside the fact that jesus only founded one church and just consencrate on this: Mt. 16: 19 ** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven**."

'I give to you Peter and through you to my Catholic Church the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven!" That my friend is very specific and clear.

Why did Jesus say this?

Jn. 20: 21 "Jesus said to them again, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Friend, keep in mind that the Bible is a CATHOLIC BOOK. The New Testament was written by Catholics and our Bible was the ONLY BIBLE for nearly 1,500yrs.

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. 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…”

Gal. 9:10 "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”

The “book of the Law” refers to the Old Testament “law” that had over 600 specific and binding rules and regulations. Not the Commandments!

Rom. 2:13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God,** but the doers of the law who will be justified.”**

James 2: 14 “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”

Rom. 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Jn. 14: 15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Why would God care unless it really mattered?

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.

It’s God’s position, not mine. Mt. 17: **19 He said to hem, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” *** By ourselves IMPOSSIBLE, with God, very possible!

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.has ."

And what about God’s all-Just Nature?

No, no my friend. Go back to the top of this post to see that in JUSTICE and LOGIC there are two levels of sin.

If anyone, ANYONE, dies with unConfessed, unrepented Mortal sin on there soul they are assigning THEMSELVES to Hell for Eternity! Our decission not God’s! Because it our freewill intellectual choice, NOT GOD’s!

You can see friend why I hold your position to factually ** Anti-biblical! **

 

[SSTeacher]

Bookworm88;4981688:

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.

Friend,I certainly did not intend to insult anyone.

You think it’s biblical, and I find that it is "anti-biblical"

I hold this position because of some understanding of who and what God is. God is and has to be All everything Good.", right? So let me ask you are being “fair” being “just” good things? Of course they are

This verse expalins correctly that we all are sinners.

1 Jn. 8: “8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.**If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins **and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”

This proves that their are More serious (Mortal sin) and less serious sin we term "veniel."

1 Jn. 5: 16 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Now lets say you steal a candy bar, and murder someone.

Are we to understand that God is going to view both sins as equal? If so how can He be a Just and Fair God? He can’t. And if we claim that he automatically forgives “all sins” past, present and future; what is the incentive not to sin? What is the purpose of the Commandments? Where is the JUSTICE?

** Jesus Himself tell us**

Put asside the fact that jesus only founded one church and just consencrate on this: Mt. 16: 19 ** I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven**."

'I give to you Peter and through you to my Catholic Church the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven!" That my friend is very specific and clear.

Why did Jesus say this?

Jn. 20: 21 "Jesus said to them again, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Friend, keep in mind that the Bible is a CATHOLIC BOOK. The New Testament was written by Catholics and our Bible was the ONLY BIBLE for nearly 1,500yrs.

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…”

Gal. 9:10 "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”

The “book of the Law” refers to the Old Testament “law” that had over 600 specific and binding rules and regulations. Not the Commandments!

Rom. 2:13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God,** but the doers of the law who will be justified.”**

James 2: 14 “What does it profit, my brethren…”

Rom. 6:12 “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness…”

Jn. 14: 15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Why would God care unless it really mattered?

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.

It’s God’s position, not mine. Mt. 17: 19 He said to hem, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.” * By ourselves IMPOSSIBLE, with God, very possible!

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 has .”

And what about God’s all-Just Nature?

No, no my friend. Go back to the top of this post to see that in JUSTICE and LOGIC there are two levels of sin.

If anyone, ANYONE, dies with unConfessed, unrepented Mortal sin on there soul they are assigning THEMSELVES to Hell for Eternity! Our decission not God’s! Because it our freewill intellectual choice, NOT GOD’s!

You can see friend why I hold your position to factually ** Anti-biblical! **

Hello again, PJM,

I apologize for the truncation of three of your quotes above (so as to be commensurate with the maximum of 6000 characters per post restriction).

There are quite a number of Bible verses that endorse the doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints so I don’t follow how you can declare that the doctrine is anti–biblical. It would be helpful if you could briefly explain what you understand by the terms “biblical” and “anti–biblical.”

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[Hesychios]

I think this thread has spun out of orbit and is now flying off on a tangent.

 

[Bookworm88]

Your grammar must be messed up here. I couldn’t understand your statement.

This verse expalins correctly that we all are sinners.

1 Jn. 8: “8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.**If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins **and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”

Yes I agree with this.

This proves that their are More serious (Mortal sin) and less serious sin we term "veniel."

1 Jn. 5: 16 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

My position on this is that there is some sin, and the Bible doesn’t particularly name it, but it cannot be forgiven, at all. I don’t believe that a person who has been truly saved is even capable of committing that sin, whatever it is. ALL other sins are forgivable. As long as you are referencing I John 5, you might as well look at verse 13, which says, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye MAY KNOW that ye have eternal life.” John is telling the readers that they CAN KNOW, while they are still on earth, that they have spiritual life that will NEVER end. That’s why the word eternal is used. I’m not sure why you would think that eternal life can have an end.

Now lets say you steal a candy bar, and murder someone.

Are we to understand that God is going to view both sins as equal? If so how can He be a Just and Fair God? He can’t.

It’s just and fair because that’s God’s position. If you offend in one point, you are guilty of ALL. You seem to want to be able to commit some sins without giving them the seriousness that God puts on them. I treat ALL sins with the same seriousness, but I also realize that Christ’s sacrifice has been applied on my behalf.

And if we claim that he automatically forgives “all sins” past, present and future; what is the incentive not to sin?

The incentive not to sin is my love for God who gave His Son to die in my place. God doesn’t have to threaten me over and over again with spiritual death to get me to obey Him. Is that the only reason you Catholics obey God, because you think He’s going to kill your souls if you don’t?

What is the purpose of the Commandments? Where is the JUSTICE?

The Ten Commandment were part of the 610 that God gave in Exodus, and as I said before, the purpose was to show that we CANNOT keep them. The justice was satisfied in the death of Christ. What more justice do you think God needs than the death of His Son?

'I give to you Peter and through you to my Catholic Church the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven!" That my friend is very specific and clear.

That’s not how the verse reads in the original Greek. Jesus Christ is also refered to as “the Rock” and it is upon the Rock of Jesus that the church is built.

Gal. 9:10 "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”

The “book of the Law” refers to the Old Testament “law” that had over 600 specific and binding rules and regulations. Not the Commandments!

Certainly you realize the Commandments were part of those 600. You have to keep all 600 or you are cursed. Jesus did it, and so He could be the sacrifice on my behalf.

Rom. 2:13 “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God,** but the doers of the law who will be justified.”**

Paul was pointing this out to build his argument for the sufficiency of Christ.

1. The doers of the law will be justified.
2. NO ONE of us humans can do the law.
3. Christ did the law, and then died for our sins.
4. Our only hope is to believe in Christ’s payment for our sins.
   You have to use the WHOLE Bible and not just pull one verse out of it’s place in Paul’s defense of the gospel.

James 2: 14 “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? . . . . . So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”

If a person does not have works, then I don’t beleive that person was EVER saved. This isn’t saying a person can lose salvation.

Rom. 6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

I’m really glad you posted this Roman’s 6 passage. Why would Paul even have to ask the question “Are we to sin because we are under grace?” It is BECAUSE his point was that we CAN sin and still be under grace. In fact, the more we sin, the more grace we would get. That’s the message. So Paul then asks, “Should we sin?” You see, sin does not have dominion over us anymore, it does not cause us death, but it is still something we could do. But should we? Paul says, “By no means.” Do not do it because it is not consistent with our new lives of having been brought from death to life.

 

[Gamera]

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

Nope. Every person in a state of grace, living or dead, is a saint. Canonized saints are simply particular saints who have been listed by the Church as public examples of holiness – that doesn’t mean they are the only saints. Plenty of saints are uncanonized. Of course, the Church doesn’t canonize people before death for the obvious reason that a person still living could still fall from grace before death.

 

[Thorwald]

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

I have listened to numerous Protestant ministers/evangelists/teachers over the past 50+ years, and I have never heard one of them call themselves or others of the same, ‘saints’. This is new to me.

Thorwald Johansen

 

[4Squarebaby]

I have listened to numerous Protestant ministers/evangelists/teachers over the past 50+ years, and I have never heard one of them call themselves or others of the same, ‘saints’. This is new to me.

Thorwald Johansen

Its commen. In the COGIC churches “saints” is used interchangably with “brothers and sisters”.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;4976431:

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
:thumbsup:I have listened to numerous Protestant ministers/evangelists/teachers over the past 50+ years, and I have never heard one of them call themselves or others of the same, ‘saints’. This is new to me.

Thorwald Johansen

Hi Thorwald,

Thanks for your interesting contribution. You easily outdistance me in terms of time as I became interested in the things of God only a decade ago. Given the diversity of Protestantism I considered it a strong possibility that there were people inside Protestant Christendom who were perhaps familiar with a different style of verbiage so I decided to word my Original Post cautiously i.e. Evangelical Protestants sometimes refer to each other as saints. Just because I’ve heard the term used to denote believers doesn’t mean I should assume everybody else has.

Unassumingly,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;4976431:

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
:thumbsup:Nope. Every person in a state of grace, living or dead, is a saint. Canonized saints are simply particular saints who have been listed by the Church as public examples of holiness – that doesn’t mean they are the only saints. Plenty of saints are uncanonized. Of course, the Church doesn’t canonize people before death for the obvious reason that a person still living could still fall from grace before death.

That’s articulately stated. In the Book of Revelation where the word saints is mentioned at least a dozen times (the King James Version has 13 references) the saints not only name Jesus as Lord but they are faithful and true witnesses for Jesus. It’s hardly surprising, then, that the early church considered witnesses who were martyred for their testimonies to be saints. I don’t know how the process of canonization evolved but the reason for it is no mystery. However, I think its application leads some to suppose that the word “saint” should be applied only to “special people.”

It seems to me that the word “saint” is correctly applied to anyone who believes Jesus Christ is Lord. To believe in Jesus demands obedience and conformity to His will so a saint bears true and faithful witness to Christ in speech and lifestyle. In other words, to be a saint is a present reality.

It’s my impression that many Evangelical Protestants, particularly those who believe in the doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints, perceive the idea of “falling from grace” and thereby excluding oneself from the Kingdom because of a particular sin designated as “mortal” by the Catholic Church to be wayward because it doesn’t appear to align with the thrust of most of the New Testament.

Cordially,
Mick