Why are some Protestants afraid of using "Saint" before an Apostle or disciple of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Harpazo said:
I’ve always wondered this. Now, please don’t get all “uppity” and say that I’m labelling all Protestants. I’m aware that Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some others use “Saint” before a biblical person’s name, i.e. St. Luke’s Lutheran Church, St. John’s UMC, etc.

But for the evangelicals, and other Protestants, why is this such a stretch? Do you not believe that St. Paul is in Heaven, or do you believe that St. James is burning in Hell? I’m just trying to gain understanding, please don’t take offense to my questions.

Comments, discussion, etc.

In Pax Christi
Andrew
Click to expand...
It’s just not a part of their vocabulary.
 
As a Protestant, and a believer in Christ Jesus, in the fellowship with other believers in Christ Jesus, are called Saints. You can search the Bible for yourself.

When Paul was addressing believers in Ephesus, he refered to them as ‘saints’ (Eph1:1) “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus”. Also, when Paul was in Rome- “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom1:7). And read (1Cor 1:2) “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours”

There are more verses that identify believer of Christ Jesus as ‘Saints’, and are alive.
 
area52 said:
As a Protestant, and a believer in Christ Jesus, in the fellowship with other believers in Christ Jesus, are called Saints. You can search the Bible for yourself.

When Paul was addressing believers in Ephesus, he refered to them as ‘saints’ (Eph1:1) “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus”. Also, when Paul was in Rome- “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom1:7). And read (1Cor 1:2) “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours”

There are more verses that identify believer of Christ Jesus as ‘Saints’, and are alive.
Click to expand...
This is a relief.

So then, the writers of the Gospels are saints?

Mary too?
 
Hellisreal said:
So then, the writers of the Gospels are saints?
Click to expand...
They are canonised Saints in the Catholic Church, but I still have not heard an explanation of why the priest or deacon does not refer to them as Saints when he reads the Gospel.
 
What would a Protestant think of a “Saint Luther” or “Saint Calvin”?😃
 
lak611 said:
They are canonised Saints in the Catholic Church, but I still have not heard an explanation of why the priest or deacon does not refer to them as Saints when he reads the Gospel.
Click to expand...
Nor have I.

I was hoping by now someone would explain this.

But, I guess its not the right time now to ask, maybe I need to pray more.
 
In my early teens in my atheist household of origin, I used to mull over the idea of my heroes being saints. I liked the idea. I knew hardly anyone would understand. Of course, I didn’t really know what a saint is. I just thought that it was a term of honor for anyone who had done a good thing at a personal sacrifice.
 
Catholic29 said:
What would a Protestant think of a “Saint Luther” or “Saint Calvin”?😃
Click to expand...
Titles mean absolutely nothing when we are in the presense of a thrice Holy God, the Most High God has only given one name that is to be above all others and to Him we bow, because He has earned what others can only receive from heaven.

👍
 
Jeanette_L said:
I can tell you as a former Evangelical, when we would discuss these kinds of issues amongst ourselves, we always thought that each of us was equal to each other in the eyes of God, past, present and future, (we always quoted the verse “God is no respecter of persons”, taking it out of context of course) and therefore, to refer to someone as St. as part of their “title” tended to put them on a pedestal, setting them above the rest of the saints, which was just not done. It also smacked of “ritual”, (therefore “dead”), religious speak.

Now, I can’t say this is what is in the thoughts and minds of every Evangelical/Fundamentalist when they address the Apostles by name, many probably don’t even think about it at all, they just know what they’ve always heard others say around them and from the pulpit, no need to question it, everything else is just plain foreign.
Click to expand...
Jeanette, this is exactly what I experienced when I attended youth groups with my ex-girlfriend at her “independent Bible Church” (which was a mix of Pentecostal/Baptist worship).
 
Harpazo said:
I don’t see why though. It means “holy one.” What’s wrong with calling someone a holy one?

In Pax Christi
Andrew
Click to expand...
It’s odd, I know. But every Christian group has it’s own jargin (sp?). It’s like how Catholics use Latin words to describe certain things that Protestants would use their own native language to describe.

There’s always the Protestant Hymn, “When the saints go marching in”. You could say that this specific word is still used in Protestantism, but is used less. We certainly see the word ‘Saint’ used throughout Protestant Bibles as well.
 
Harpazo said:
I don’t see why though. It means “holy one.” What’s wrong with calling someone a holy one?

In Pax Christi
Andrew
Click to expand...
Not a thing is wrong with it. And indeed some Protestants do use the term, even regularly. But as has already been explained, most understand the term to refer to anyone who is in Christ, not just a select few “superheros of the faith”. Thus it would be appropriate to refer to every individual Christian by this nomenclature. However, we realize that Catholics generally reserve it for a just a few, not all. So, to avoid the confusion that this would cause by referring to all other Christians as saints, we generally use other terms (such as brother, sister) instead. But you will still, on occasion, hear protestants of all backgrounds make reference to the saints of the church. Indeed, I got a letter from my bishop just the other day addressed “to the saints of…”
 
Saints refer very simply to those who are the elect of God, those who have been set apart from this world, and who have the Spirit of Christ in them. Those who do not have the Spirit of Christ are not saints. One cannot earn sainthood. The blood of the saints that is under the altar in Revelation attests to this fact.

The only saintliness is in Christ who earned it by ABSOLUTE obedience to God the Father. The only rewards that are given us at the Judgment seat of Jesus Christ will be because of His completed work, and the miracle of grace that imputed righteousness, that could not be earned.

In the end ALL THE GLORY goes to God and not to us. To call yourself a saint would be a lie if you were not elect of God. Seeing as one cannot earn election, for by it’s very nature election is the choice of God (as explained in the Gospel of John) any name used in this way would be with full awareness that one would understand that saint is associated with the completed work of Christ upon the cross and the Spirit that He sent forth into the hearts of the elect, so as to sanctify them. The idea of earning sainthood is a far removed as the east from the west and is only an invention of man. Any designations given to believers are already mentioned in Scripture and they themselves are worn with grace and humility and in acknowledgement that Jesus said that we should call NO MAN FATHER.

Our Father, which art IN HEAVEN. Hallowed be THY NAME.

There is only ONE name that we should call SAINT and that would be the Lord Jesus Christ, who earned this title by TOTAL OBEDIENCE to God the Father. In this light ALL MEN are SINNERS and any title that is conveyed upon us, is a result not of some meritorious system, but the GRACE of GOD through our Lord Jesus Christ, whose NAME WE extol, for He earned this name by humbling Himself unto death (unless we were GOD INCARNATE humbling ourselves could we recieve a title of HOLY ONE…there is only one says Jesus who is good, and this is God.)

In the resurrection, Jesus appeared to many witnesses and if you recall, he afterward ascended to the Father, who He clearly showed with whom He is ONE in the sense that we can only identify with because of IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. So gracious is the Lord that He even considers to include us in what CANNOT BE EARNED. This after all is the GRACE OF OUR GOD.

I may call myself a SAINT, but I surrender all to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ and as Paul instructed…in Galatians 6:14 … FORBID THAT I SHOULD GLORY…save in THE CROSS of our Lord Jesus Christ… Why? Well we could never EVER be sacrificed for the SINS of the world…and in another sense the GIG has been done…so there is nothing we can do to add to a COMPLETED WORK, which was finished since the world began. Our God has ONE AND ONLY ONE begotten SON, who has finished and conquered the adversity, the world and sin. We only inherit but do not acquire even through birthright, for our birth in GOD is a result of sovereign grace and we stand not clothed in our own deeds, but in the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST. His obedience opening through HIS shed blood (pure and spotless blood) a way directly to the Father who as the Spirit are HOLY, HOLY, HOLY…we can only BOW as we are told that Jesus Christ is LORD, as Peter bowed to God incarnate upon this sod, as Thomas bowed to the resurrected Christ, as Stephen being stoned and looking up saw Christ standing at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD, as Paul fell blinded by the light of the ASCENDED CHRIST and served him not desiring any glory of his own in this life, but was happy to be known as the servant of Christ, for if any would be GREAT they should be the servant. It is this difficulty that some who aspiring to be holy as He is HOLY, abase themselves, attempt obedience, embrace religion and thereby only miss what cannot be acquired meritoriously, but can only be had by the GRACIOUS GIFT of a SOVERIEGN CHRIST the Lamb and the ALMIGHTY FATHER, and the HOLY, HOLY, HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. It would be FOOLISHNESS to think that sainthood is even worth considering when the only HOLINESS we have is imputed to us on the basis of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ, determined by the foreknowledge of the Father, who can put a person into Christ, and Christ into a person, this is not something acquired or earned but simply, AMAZING GRACE. 🤷
 
Goblin_Taters said:
I imagine it also stems from a different understanding of grace and justification. In Catholicism, grace is infused by God into the individual, effecting an ontological change in the individual. The individual, in being justified, truly goes from being an unrighteous sinner, towards being a righteous saint. Sanctification and justification are not separated in Catholicism. They go hand in hand. Therefore, in Catholicism, a Christian is continually being justified and sanctified throughout his or her life. The degree of sanctity depends, in large part, to the Christian’s responses to God throughout life. There is a tendency in Catholicism to see degrees of sanctity (as seen in the three stages: purgative, illuminative, unitive).

In Protestantism, or at least in certain groups of Protestantism, grace is not infused by God into the individual but rather concerns God’s attitude, or how God sees a sinner. In Protestantism, when a person is justified, this means that God no longer sees the unrighteousness of the sinner, but only sees the righteousness of Christ that the sinner puts on. The Christian remains a sinner, but also has become a saint. Yet, the idea of saintliness is different here. Saintliness comes not from the continual synergy of call and response, but raither from the decisive moment when God alone moves the sinner to faith. A person’s becoming saintly is the work of God alone, and God does not raise one sinful human being above another in saintliness, since the justification is one and the same.
Click to expand...
Not a Catholic here, but have to respond.

Ms Goblin has an interesting thread here. I have been a Christian for many years, not dedicated to any particular denomination for any length of time. I have studied a great deal though and I can say that in the Christian churches that I have attended and taught in that both concepts were/are recognized.

The bible states that we are saved by grace granted to us through our faith in Christ and His atonement. This process to be real had to be accompanied by the indwelling of the Spirit. In plain language, God plants a bit of Himself in us and we allow it to grow or not. Our state of “Holiness” varies in practical terms according to our responsiveness to God and the extent to which we allow Christ to grow in us.

Scxripture states that we are ALL sinners and in need of forgiveness, Paul, Mary, James, you and me. When we become Christians we are all accorded the title of “Saint.” I suspect that the appelation “Saint” is more prominent in the Catholic Church due to the practice of praying to Saints.

I should emphasise that the lack of “St.” as a title in no way diminishes the respect etc that Protestants hold for the Apostles and in many cases for “Catholic” saints such as St. Francis of Assisi. Remember that Other Christians hold to sola scriptura, and have for the same reason avoided the use of “Father” when refering to a man of the cloth. Didn’t Christ Himself refuse the title?
 
Hmmmm… I thought about this but I can’t really expain

I do know some people who are Protestant (most likely Baptist) who use the title Saint before apostles/ disciple’s names.
 
jazzy_987 said:
Hmmmm… I thought about this but I can’t really expain

I do know some people who are Protestant (most likely Baptist) who use the title Saint before apostles/ disciple’s names.
Click to expand...
There is a Saint Timothy Missionary Baptist Church in my city.
 
I am less than 5 minutes away from a Saint Paul Lutheran Church.

(it has nicer curb appeal too)
 
In a small town just north of Austin, TX there is a small wooden St. Mary’s Baptist Church. I’ve never been inside, but it appears to be mostly an African American congregation, judging from people I’ve seen outside of it on Sundays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top