Why are protestants afraid of the word "saint"?

[juliamajor]

Calling Roman Catholics “Roman Catholics” is animosity?

What should I call you? The hot dog vendors?

And for you to believe it means that you believe polytheism.

Is God the Father not also God?

God the Holy Spirit?

Is Mary also their mother?

"
The Theotokos Mary as God-bearer-doesnot mean Mother of God in the eternal sense.GOd is all and made all and caused everything to come into being-without Himself having an origin. God the Son was born ‘in time’ even though He existed from all eternity Theotokos refers to the ‘incarnation’.God taking on flesh taking human nature thus making Jesus True God and True Man. This was only possible because of Mary’s Amen. Mary is called Theotokos to give witness to the fact of the Incarnation.ECF Cyril of Alexandria wrote " I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not.For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin not Theotokos" So the term “Theotokos” says and signifies more about Jesus than Mary"

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

And on that regular scheduled topic, where is our sponsor, Lou? He started this thread on a false premise, attacking protestants on the supposed issue that we are afraid of the word “saints”.

If nothing else, this discussion should have shown that protestants are NOT afraid of the word saints. We use it. We apply it to one another. Indeed we think it is a very important and appropriate word to use to describe anyone who is in Christ.

But Lou has chosen not to participate in our discussion. One can only hope that he has read a few of the earlier posts in this thread and now realizes his error, and won’t continue to propogate falsehood as truth in the future.

Now the thread has continued with both uplifting and less than edifying conversation from many sides. But I found this comment particularly intersting:

Exactly. But in the Communion of Saints (I don’t know whether you hold to the Apostle’s Creed, which affirms the Communion of Saints), the departed in Christ are IN Christ: perfected in charity and united to him in love and will. Since their will is His will, they love us as He loves us.

Catholics know all of the scriptures Protestants quote to deny intercession to the Saints, but – as is often the case – we see distinctions that Protestants do not. We point to Revelation where where "the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints . . . The elders in heaven (not angels, but elders) are presenting the prayers of the saints – the saints on earth. In chapter 8, an angel presents the prayers of *all *the saints as incense. Catholics believe that the “saints” do not cease to be “saints” when they die. And we believe that the Communion of Saints requires actual communion.

Moreover, beneath the altar, the souls of the martyrs cry out for vengeance upon their blood (which we believe is intimately joined to the Blood of the Lamb) – so they certainly are concerned with what is going on “downstairs.”

My particular protestant denomination does hold to and teach the Apostles’ Creed, including the line “I believe in… the communion of saints…”

Like you, we believe that the communion of saints requires actual communion (oh, and actual saints, too). But it is probably important how we each define those terms: “communion” and “saints”.

I will suggest that communion can take place outside of the sacrament of the Eucharist. As I believe you yourself expressed to me in another thread, a protestant can experience spiritual communion while at a Catholic Mass even though he does not participate in the receiving of the elements of the body and blood of Christ, thus communion is not limited to physically communing with Christ. Communion is about being in union with, in this case, the saints – that is being one with another. This oneness, which I believe can only be accomplished by being one with Christ, is a gift of the Holy Spirit to each indiivdual believer. And it is given quite apart from receiving the Eucharistic elements (though of course it is equally valid in that context as well, just not limited to it).

So, as Christ’s atoning gift of redemption won for us on the cross makes us at one with God in Christ. So, his victory over death and sending of the Holy Spirit creates a new community in him which find itself at one with one another by the indwelling of Christ through his Holy Spirit in each one of us. Each is a type of communion, the first with God in Christ and the second with the body of Christ through the Spirit’s presence.

And who has this experience? Well the saints. Who are the saints? Are they everyone who believes in Jesus? Are they everyone who recognizes Jesus as Lord? Are they only those who have died in Christ and not are part of the Church triumphant? Are they a few select individuals canonized by the church. No, to all of these.

Of course, any of these persons could indeed be a saint, and probably are. But if one is getting techinical the word saint would not be either completely inclusive of all of these nor exclusive of any others.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

For instance mere belief in Jesus or recognizing his Lordship is not sufficient to be a saint beause even the devil would meet that definition. Likewise, it cannot be only those in the church triumphant or Paul used the term inappropriately when writing to living saints in this letters that compose nearly half the New Testament. It is not even just a few select individuals canonized by the Church, or again Paul was wrong in the way he used the term.

The simplest usage that I can think of is to recognize that the New Testament word most commonly translated as “saint” is the word hagios, which is also translated not just as “saint” but as “holy”. So, saints are nothing more and nothing less than “holy people”. Now, how do we become holy. We become holy when God makes us holy. We become holy when we are purged of our sins and made righeous before God. In once sense none of us are therefore likely to be holy into we have died and entered heaven, for our sinful nature seems to continually remind us that we are not truly as holy and righteous on this earth as we are called to be. Yet, on the other hand, the God who calls things that are not as though they are, does declare us to be justified, cleansed of sin and imputed with righteousness.

Thus it is not we who call ourselves saints, but God who declares our holiness. And who are we to call God a liar.

So it is in this context that I see Paul refer to living persons, many of them still imperfect keepers practioners of righteousness, as saints. And it is not Paul alone who speaks of those in the church militant thusly, so does Jude, Ananias, and Luke. And as you pointed out above, it is also used by John in reference to saints not only in heaven, but those saints on earth who continue to offer prayers (Rev. 5:8) and who have war waged against on earth them by the beast (Rev. 13:7).

Protestants who read thiesepassages will not deny the reality of intercession of and for the saints any more than Catholics who read these passages will deny the universal applicabilty of the term “saint” to all persons who are declared holy by God, both the living and the dead.

This communion of saints is a oneness we share by the work of the Holy Spirit that convicts of sins and leads us into all righteousness. (Notice that its confession is part of the third article of the Apostles’ Creed which spells out the work of the Holy Spirit.) Having been claimed by Christ, we are made one not only with him, but also with one another just as Jesus prayed for in John 17. That is the essence of our communion. And as the CCC expresses it, “it reaches [both backward and forward] into eternity, embracing all who are being purified to enter the blessed vision and all who are already rejoicing in the beholding of God’s glory.”**

**I do note that the context in which the CCC made this statement was with regard to our communion with those who have preceeded us in death. Yet, logic demands that if we have communion with them in a communion of saints, then they must also be having communion with us. Thus we have both the dead and the living both joined to one another in a communion of the saints. It is not just those who have gone before us who experience this, we experience it with them. Therefore, we must also be part of that one and the same communion for they do not have communion with us apart from us also participating in it along with them And this makes perfect sense, as it is all who are being purified, and though the author of the sentence may have been thinkin of purgatory, it is no less true that we who are among the living, if we are in Christ, are also in the process of being purified even before death (Acts 15:9, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Titus 2:14, James 4:8, 1 Peter 1:22, 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 3:3).

Thus it is that sainthood is not something that we actual attain, but rather, sainthood (holiness) is a state into which in grace calls us. As W.E. Vine stated it in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

Hagios] expresses something more and higher than hieros, sacred, outwardly associated with God; … something more thansemnos, worthy, honourable; …something more than hagnos, pure, free from defilement. Hagios is … more comprehensive… It is characteristically godlikeness.

This godlikeness is what it means to be a Christian, one reflecting the image of God and the person of Christ in one’s life. When we become a Christian, a person claimed by Christ, whether we like it or not we become holy persons, persons set aside for God’s purposes in our lives. We are sanctified, working out his holy and perfect will in our lives. Though we may not be worthy of the title, we nontheless are transformed by God into people that the New Testament authors callled saints, each and everyone of us.

 

[Sixtus]

Sixtus;2750206:

I went to a Byzantine Mass last month on the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. I cried through the entire liturgy.

God bless you sister

 

[Sixtus]

Sixtus;2750206:

I went to a Byzantine Mass last month on the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos. I cried through the entire liturgy.

Amen sister, I am moved just reading your text.

 

[Sixtus]

"
The Theotokos Mary as God-bearer-doesnot mean Mother of God in the eternal sense.GOd is all and made all and caused everything to come into being-without Himself having an origin. God the Son was born ‘in time’ even though He existed from all eternity Theotokos refers to the ‘incarnation’.God taking on flesh taking human nature thus making Jesus True God and True Man. This was only possible because of Mary’s Amen. Mary is called Theotokos to give witness to the fact of the Incarnation.ECF Cyril of Alexandria wrote " I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not.For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin not Theotokos" So the term “Theotokos” says and signifies more about Jesus than Mary"

God the Son incarnate and God the Son Infinate are One and the same person of the Most Holy Trinity. By definition Mary is the Mother of them both since the Son -Infinite is manisfested in the Son Incarnate and God the Father and Holy Spirit also.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

God the Son incarnate and God the Son Infinate are One and the same person of the Most Holy Trinity. By definition Mary is the Mother of them both since the Son -Infinite is manisfested in the Son Incarnate and God the Father and Holy Spirit also.

I don’t see how this this has anything to do with the word “saint”?

And while I have no objection to the concept of Mary as the Mother of God because she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, I do think you go too far when you make a person who has a definite beginning the mother of the Son-Infinite. That is no longer a mystery but a logical absurdity. It is as if you see Mary as coming before God. I would caution you that your Mariology may have gone so far as to have slipped into idolatry and placing another before God. Whether that is actually true I will let you examine your own heart, but what is written here would make me cautious as to exactly what you mean and how far you are willing to pursue this idea. Remember, God is the only eternal being, creator of all, including Mary. So, venerate her as the mother of Jesus, but don’t glorify her or serve her for such reverence belongs only to the God whom we worship.

 

[Tabitha]

I don’t understand what’s so difficult. Either Jesus in the flesh in 100% God and 100% human or only part God and part Human. If Jesus is 100% God then what’s the big deal of calling Mary “Mother of God”?

I don’t think Protestants are afraid of the word “Saints”. They don’t understand the Church’s teachings in the matter.

Although I don’t really understand “what’s to understand”. Most Protestants I know believe you go to heaven or hell immediately after death. They also believe it’s ok to ask others here on earth to pray for one another but it’s NOT ok to ask those in heaven to pray for us. Where does it say THAT in the bible? I know the bible says not to pray to the dead I take that to mean sorcery and fortune telling.I just can’t figure out why it’s ok to pray for those on earth to pray for one another and that it’s not ok for those closest to God (those in heaven) to pray for us.

Tabitha

 

[mercygate]

I found this comment particularly intersting:

My particular protestant denomination does hold to and teach the Apostles’ Creed, including the line “I believe in… the communion of saints…”

Like you, we believe that the communion of saints requires actual communion (oh, and actual saints, too). Butit is probably important how we each define those terms: “communion” and “saints”.

I will suggest that communion can take place outside of the sacrament of the Eucharist. As I believe you yourself expressed to me in another thread, a protestant can experience spiritual communion while at a Catholic Mass even though he does not participate in the receiving of the elements of the body and blood of Christ, thus communion is not limited to physically communing with Christ.

For a Catholic the “spiritual communion” is definitely a substitute for receiving the Blessed Sacrament, and NOT the same as the Body of Christ in the Sacrament.

Communion is about being in union with, in this case, the saints – that is being one with another. This oneness, which I believe can only be accomplished by being one with Christ, is a gift of the Holy Spirit to each indiivdual believer. And it is given quite apart from receiving the Eucharistic elements (though of course it is equally valid in that context as well, just not limited to it).

For us, the Communion of Saints not dependent upon experiencing it as one experiences other gifts of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think what you say contradicts the Catholic view; this is not quite how we would express it. For us physically receiving the Sacrament is a true sign and fact of Communion with the Saints and above all with Christ Himself.

The doctrine on the Communion of Saints isn’t focused on sacramental Communion, as you seem to indicate. It describes the fellowship of the entire Church: in this life and the next. The Eucharist – as source and summit of our life in Christ – is integral to it but this doctrine is not centered on it.

I bolded your statements that are consistent with Catholic understanding.

So, as Christ’s atoning gift of redemption won for us on the cross makes us at one with God in Christ. So, his victory over death and sending of the Holy Spirit creates a new community in him which find itself at one with one another by the indwelling of Christ through his Holy Spirit in each one of us. Each is a type of communion,

I think you mean kind?

the first with God in Christ and the second with the body of Christ through the Spirit’s presence.

Catholic theology always includes the sacramental element of matter. For Catholics, perfect unity must also include the visible, identifiable, tangible Apostolic community in Communion with the historic, Apostolic Churches and, for us, never without Peter; we believe that is how Jesus ordered His Church.

And who has this experience? Well the saints. Who are the saints? Are they everyone who believes in Jesus? Are they everyone who recognizes Jesus as Lord? Are they only those who have died in Christ and are part of the Church triumphant? Are they a few select individuals canonized by the church? No, to all of these.

We would agree. I think the OP was referring to people who object to the term “Saints” because they think the Catholic view is that the ONLY saints are those who have been canonized. This is, of course, a grave misunderstanding.

Of course, any of these persons could indeed be a saint, and probably are. But if one is getting technical the word saint would not be either completely inclusive of all of these nor exclusive of any others.

Exactly.

 

[mercygate]

For instance mere belief in Jesus or recognizing his Lordship is not sufficient to be a saint beause even the devil would meet that definition. Likewise, it cannot be only those in the church triumphant or Paul used the term inappropriately when writing to living saints in this letters that compose nearly half the New Testament. It is not even just a few select individuals canonized by the Church, or again Paul was wrong in the way he used the term.

The simplest usage that I can think of is to recognize that the New Testament word most commonly translated as “saint” is the word hagios, which is also translated not just as “saint” but as “holy”. So, saints are nothing more and nothing less than “holy people”. Now, how do we become holy. We become holy when God makes us holy. We become holy when we are purged of our sins and made righeous before God. In once sense none of us are therefore likely to be holy into we have died and entered heaven, for our sinful nature seems to continually remind us that we are not truly as holy and righteous on this earth as we are called to be. Yet, on the other hand, the God who calls things that are not as though they are, does declare us to be justified, cleansed of sin and imputed with righteousness.

Thus it is not we who call ourselves saints, but God who declares our holiness. And who are we to call God a liar.

So it is in this context that I see Paul refer to living persons, many of them still imperfect keepers practioners of righteousness, as saints. And it is not Paul alone who speaks of those in the church militant thusly, so does Jude, Ananias, and Luke. And as you pointed out above, it is also used by John in reference to saints not only in heaven, but those saints on earth who continue to offer prayers (Rev. 5:8) and who have war waged against on earth them by the beast (Rev. 13:7).

Protestants who read thiesepassages will not deny the reality of intercession of and for the saints any more than Catholics who read these passages will deny the universal applicabilty of the term “saint” to all persons who are declared holy by God, both the living and the dead.

This communion of saints is a oneness we share by the work of the Holy Spirit that convicts of sins and leads us into all righteousness. (Notice that its confession is part of the third article of the Apostles’ Creed which spells out the work of the Holy Spirit.) Having been claimed by Christ, we are made one not only with him, but also with one another just as Jesus prayed for in John 17. That is the essence of our communion. And as the CCC expresses it, “it reaches [both backward and forward] into eternity, embracing all who are being purified to enter the blessed vision and all who are already rejoicing in the beholding of God’s glory.”**

**I do note that the context in which the CCC made this statement was with regard to our communion with those who have preceeded us in death. Yet, logic demands that if we have communion with them in a communion of saints, then they must also be having communion with us. Thus we have both the dead and the living both joined to one another in a communion of the saints. It is not just those who have gone before us who experience this, we experience it with them. Therefore, we must also be part of that one and the same communion for they do not have communion with us apart from us also participating in it along with them And this makes perfect sense, as it is all who are being purified, and though the author of the sentence may have been thinkin of purgatory, it is no less true that we who are among the living, if we are in Christ, are also in the process of being purified even before death (Acts 15:9, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Titus 2:14, James 4:8, 1 Peter 1:22, 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 3:3).

Thus it is that sainthood is not something that we actual attain, but rather, sainthood (holiness) is a state into which in grace calls us. As W.E. Vine stated it in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: This godlikeness is what it means to be a Christian, one reflecting the image of God and the person of Christ in one’s life. When we become a Christian, a person claimed by Christ, whether we like it or not we become holy persons, persons set aside for God’s purposes in our lives. We are sanctified, working out his holy and perfect will in our lives. Though we may not be worthy of the title, we nontheless are transformed by God into people that the New Testament authors callled saints, each and everyone of us.

Preach it, Brother! The key is DEFINITELY the word “hagios” in all of its nuances! For Catholics, we TEND to use the word “Saint” to mean “the beatified.” But that is only a convenient shorthand. You’ve nailed here!

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think the OP was referring to people who object to the term “Saints” because they think the Catholic view is that the ONLY saints are those who have been canonized. This is, of course, a grave misunderstanding.

And this is why I think the OP was smearing protestants and a troll for not returning to the conversation. You see, the OP projects onto protestants views that are in fact not generally held by protestants.

 

[mercygate]

And this is why I think the OP was smearing protestants and a troll for not returning to the conversation. You see, the OP projects onto protestants views that are in fact not generally held by protestants.

So you know what it feels like!

 

[lak611]

And this is why I think the OP was smearing protestants and a troll for not returning to the conversation. You see, the OP projects onto protestants views that are in fact not generally held by protestants.

Unfortunately, lack of charity is found in persons of all religions. I appreciate your charity in responding to this thread and explaining the belief of many Protestants.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So you know what it feels like!

Indeed. But seriously, I don’t fault the OP for holding the views he/she held when posting. Though it isn’t the dominant reality, there are likely still more than a few of people who probably do think as he suggested. My larger concern, with regard to the OP, is that if he did not return to read the answers to his question, that he might still maintain his false view as if he were correct. That is a shame for it can only lead to further misunderstanding down the road at a later time.

 

[lak611]

Indeed. But seriously, I don’t fault the OP for holding the views he/she held when posting. Though it isn’t the dominant reality, there are likely still more than a few of people who probably do think as he suggested. My larger concern, with regard to the OP, is that if he did not return to read the answers to his question, that he might still maintain his false view as if he were correct. That is a shame for it can only lead to further misunderstanding down the road at a later time.

Hopefully, he’s lurking even if he isn’t posting.

 

[ThereseMarie]

I would caution you that your Mariology may have gone so far as to have slipped into idolatry and placing another before God. Whether that is actually true I will let you examine your own heart, but what is written here would make me cautious as to exactly what you mean and how far you are willing to pursue this idea. Remember, God is the only eternal being, creator of all, including Mary. So, venerate her as the mother of Jesus, but don’t glorify her or serve her for such reverence belongs only to the God whom we worship.
QUOTE]

** I can certainly understand why the impression of idolatry of the BVM would be alarming, but it is not my understanding that anyone here is confused that Mary is equal to God on any level. I just don’t read these posts that way. But then, I am not afraid of the word “Mary” ( a little play on the OP forgive me ) .

Now, I am not** saying that you are afraid of the word “Mary”, Grace Seeker, but I certainly think there are some people who are afraid to simply say, “Mary is the Mother of God,” without taking it to this infinite degree of preciseness and debate on the exact meaning of the word “mother,” or “God,” or “is” for that matter. (BTW: Can we mere mortals really define God precisely?) Sometimes I think we are better off accepting simple truths, and letting God worry about the details. But, that is me - I am a little childlike in that way, and definitely a “cradle Catholic” who is still crawling. As you and another postperson, I believe a Protestant, put it:

              Mary is *Jesus'* mother.   
              *Jesus* is God.
              Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Or as I love to say, the Theotokos. (I shoulda been Byzantine rite!)

BTW, I respect Protestant differences and never want to be disrespectful or hurtful to a fellow Christian, although, admittedly, I have been *

 

[Sixtus]

I don’t see how this this has anything to do with the word “saint”?

And while I have no objection to the concept of Mary as the Mother of God because she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, I do think you go too far when you make a person who has a definite beginning the mother of the Son-Infinite. That is no longer a mystery but a logical absurdity. It is as if you see Mary as coming before God. I would caution you that your Mariology may have gone so far as to have slipped into idolatry and placing another before God. Whether that is actually true I will let you examine your own heart, but what is written here would make me cautious as to exactly what you mean and how far you are willing to pursue this idea. Remember, God is the only eternal being, creator of all, including Mary. So, venerate her as the mother of Jesus, but don’t glorify her or serve her for such reverence belongs only to the God whom we worship.

With all due respects: There are not two Christ’s. Christ Incarnate and Christ Infinite are One and the same Person. Christ Incarnate and the Second Person of the Trinity are the SAME Person.

God had not beginning. But ‘God in man made mannifest’ was created. We know that because Scripture records the fact.

If Mary is the mother of Christ Incarnate then she has to be the mother of Christ Infinite in His humanity. What the Orthodox succintly call ‘Theotokos’

I do not see any conflict there. You cannot detach Christ’s humanity as if He were a different Person from the Son of God. If she is Mother in one, then by logic definition, she has to be Mother of the other. Hard as it may be for you to grasp that which Orthodox and Catholics understand so well, there is just no other way that it can be. Christ was not born soul-less as you are suggesting.

Jesus said: ‘the Father and I are One’. He also said that ‘to see Him was to see the Father’. That was the very reason why the Jews wanted to kill Him because he claimed equality with God Jn 5:18.

Christ Incarnate and the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity are One and the SAME Person. Two manifestations, one Person. Spirit and Body. But the Spirit is in the Body. We possess a Spirit created by Him. He possessed the very Spirit of God. He was God - unless you believe that then you are not Christian.

If Mary gave birth to God Incarnate, then she gave birth to that which contained also God Infinate. It just cannot be any other way.

I am sorry if that shocks you but logically there just is no other way.

You even admit it yourself when you say that ‘Mary is the Mother of Jesus and He is God’ Therefore God Incarnate has a Mother. But if God incarnate is one and the same person as God the Son then though God the Son is uncreated, He paradoxically has a mother. God entered humanity. In order for that to happen, God had to have a mother

This does not presume that Mary had to exist before God. That is preposterous. But she did exist before Christ Incarnate was born in order to be His Mother. She gave birth to God Incarnate whose Spirit was God.

This does not deny or contradict the fact that God is uncreated from all eternity.

 

[mercygate]

Indeed. But seriously, I don’t fault the OP for holding the views he/she held when posting. Though it isn’t the dominant reality, there are likely still more than a few of people who probably do think as he suggested. My larger concern, with regard to the OP, is that if he did not return to read the answers to his question, that he might still maintain his false view as if he were correct. That is a shame for it can only lead to further misunderstanding down the road at a later time.

The OP might have got his idea from talking to people like our recently departed brother, brosam, who persisted in his vain accusations – despite endless explanation of the Catholic [and mostly also the mainstream Protestant] position that the departed in Christ are not “dead Saints”: You pray to DEAD PEOPLE!

No explanation could stop the screaming. Truth itself bore no weight.

We get a lot of that on this side of the Tiber. But you know that!

 

[mercygate]

I don’t see how this this has anything to do with the word “saint”?

And while I have no objection to the concept of Mary as the Mother of God because she was the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God, I do think you go too far when you make a person who has a definite beginning the mother of the Son-Infinite. That is no longer a mystery but a logical absurdity. It is as if you see Mary as coming before God. I would caution you that your Mariology may have gone so far as to have slipped into idolatry and placing another before God. Whether that is actually true I will let you examine your own heart, but what is written here would make me cautious as to exactly what you mean and how far you are willing to pursue this idea. Remember, God is the only eternal being, creator of all, including Mary. So, venerate her as the mother of Jesus, but don’t glorify her or serve her for such reverence belongs only to the God whom we worship.

All of us in Christ receive “eternal” life. For us humans, it means life from the moment of our conception until . . . time no longer exists and we join our Lord in Eternity. That is the only sense in which Mary can be eternal.

Wesley had no quibble with the “Mother of God” title – nor did any of the first Reformers. The mainstream Protestant Churches affirm the first 4 Ecumenical Councils. “Mother of God” was hammered out in 351 A.D. at Ephesus. This is not a doctrine that separates Catholics from Protestants. Even BAPTISTS hang onto this one – although most of them would be surprises to find that out.

 

[paarsurrey]

Should calling a chief justice “honorable” (in particular those who respect the moral law) be considered a sacrilege? Of course not. Why should someone choose to be so scrupulous? Why are you protestants so afraid of the word “saint”? Are you afraid of being viewed as less protestant if you give more honor to men and women who set a prime example of what a follower of Christ should be or do? Are you afraid of having more in common with Catholicism? Is there a hidden resentment or envy toward the word saint for God giving them more grace than you? Are you just very uncomfortable with humility? For whatever the reason, be honest with yourself. Don’t be afraid of respecting or complimenting God’s grace. You are missing a treasure by not reading the lives of them. The inspiration and fire of the spirit their lives can spark in yours as a follower of Christ is immense! Do what has to be done, it is not happiness, it is greatness.

Hi

In Islam, the equivalent is 'wali’ plural 'auliya’ meaning friend/friends of Allah, the persons who are not formally selected by GodAllahYHWH as prophets, as there are no Formal Prophets after Muhammad, nevertheless they are visited by angels and received revelation from GodAllahYHWH (which cannot be against Quran), they also show miracles. All these things are considered fruits of belief in Muahmmad/Quran/Islam.
The saints or wali or auliya must be respected and honored if they are not against the Revealed Book.

Thanks