Concerning Saints

[Starcomet]

Again Bryne Aaron was not a believer in Christ yet was still called a saint? He was a believer in God but not Christ as he did not exists at the time. If you guys are distinctioning lower case "saint" from upper case "Saint" then sure I agree that all people are "saints" to a lesser extent but not all who believe are Saints but they can be.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Again Bryne Aaron was not a believer in Christ yet was still called a saint? He was a believer in God but not Christ as he did not exists at the time. If you guys are distinctioning lower case "saint" from upper case "Saint" then sure I agree that all people are "saints" to a lesser extent but not all who believe are Saints but they can be.

Aaron believed in the promises of the Lord, and today we believe in the fulfillment of these promises (Christ).

 

[Starcomet]

Aaron believed in the promises of the Lord, and today we believe in the fulfillment of these promises (Christ).

But that is not the same thing or else all Jews and Muslims would be considerd saints as well by Christianity.

 

[Mark_Sam]

But that is not the same thing or else all Jews and Muslims would be considerd saints as well by Christianity.

Neither Jews nor Muslims believe in the fulfillment of the promises of the Lord, or else they would have been Christians.

And if they believed in these promises, they would see that they have already been fulfilled in Christ.

In Old Testament times, they did not have the whole Gospel message, and simply trusted that the Lord would save them, and that He would send them His Messiah. And with Christ, all these things came true, and the whole Gospel message has been revealed.

Salvation and sainthood has always been by Christ, since the Lamb was "slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8).

Salvation leads to sainthood, holiness and wisdom. Only by Christ can one be holy and wise.

The Old Testament saints (Abraham, Moses, Job, David etc.) believed that one day the Messiah would come and save them. The New Testament saints (all true believers) believe that the Messiah has come, and one day He will return in all His glory.

 

[Starcomet]

Neither Jews nor Muslims believe in the fulfillment of the promises of the Lord, or else they would have been Christians.

And if they believed in these promises, they would see that they have already been fulfilled in Christ.

In Old Testament times, they did not have the whole Gospel message, and simply trusted that the Lord would save them, and that He would send them His Messiah. And with Christ, all these things came true, and the whole Gospel message has been revealed.

Salvation and sainthood has always been by Christ, since the Lamb was "slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8).

Salvation leads to sainthood, holiness and wisdom. Only by Christ can one be holy and wise.

The Old Testament saints (Abraham, Moses, Job, David etc.) believed that one day the Messiah would come and save them. The New Testament saints (all true believers) believe that the Messiah has come, and one day He will return in all His glory.

But Jews still believe that the messiah will one day come, they just do not accept this was Jesus and hence they would still be considerd saints. And some muslims do believe that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and hence would be considerd saints as well. The fact is that Jews are still considerd saints because they still believe in that promise. The Jews have examined Jesus' claim to being the messiah and have found him not the one in their opinion and you cannot hold that against them.

And again there is a difference between a "saint" (I prefer the term secular saint) and Saint which is someone who has merged with God through mind and soul.

 

[Mark_Sam]

The fact is that Jews are still considerd saints because they still believe in that promise. The Jews have examined Jesus' claim to being the messiah and have found him not the one in their opinion and you cannot hold that against them.

If they willingly reject that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, then they are not considered saints in terms of Christianity. This is not only true for Jews, but all people.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, did not only believe the promises of the Lord, but also in the fulfillment. In John 8:56, Jesus says:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” "

Therefore, he is a saint, for he rejoiced at Christ's coming.

 

[Starcomet]

If they willingly reject that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, then they are not considered saints in terms of Christianity. This is not only true for Jews, but all people.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, did not only believe the promises of the Lord, but also in the fulfillment. In John 8:56, Jesus says:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” "

Therefore, he is a saint, for he rejoiced at Christ's coming.

I disagree as anyone can be secular saints or Saints but that is my opinion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But Jews still believe that the messiah will one day come, they just do not accept this was Jesus and hence they would still be considerd saints. And some muslims do believe that Jesus was the Jewish messiah and hence would be considerd saints as well. The fact is that Jews are still considerd saints because they still believe in that promise. The Jews have examined Jesus' claim to being the messiah and have found him not the one in their opinion and you cannot hold that against them.

And again there is a difference between a "saint" (I prefer the term secular saint) and Saint which is someone who has merged with God through mind and soul.

Christ says, no one comes to the Father except through him.

If they willingly reject that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, then they are not considered saints in terms of Christianity. This is not only true for Jews, but all people.

Abraham, the father of the Jews, did not only believe the promises of the Lord, but also in the fulfillment. In John 8:56, Jesus says:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” "

Therefore, he is a saint, for he rejoiced at Christ's coming.

You are completely correct, I could not have said it better myself.

I disagree as anyone can be secular saints or Saints but that is my opinion.

As stated above, this is an incorrect statement. By not discerning our Lord Jesus, they are denying the Trinity; and are therefore outside the Church.

Be mindful that in order to post in these "Christian Only" forums, we must be in agreement with CF's statement of faith; which is the Nicene Creed (which is taken directly from Scripture).

In the third article it states that "I believe in one holy catholic (universal) Church, the Communion of the Saints...". In context with the second article "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ..." the catholic Church, is the communion of the Saints, living and dead, and in light of the second article to be such, one must confess faith in Jesus Christ. Those who do not are neither saints, nor Christians, nor part of the Church.

Promoting such beliefs is off topic to this forum, and such topics may only be posted in Unorthodox Theology.

 

[MrPolo]

I believe all people can become Saints and do not need to go through an official system of canonization or have to be Christian.

In Catholicism, those who are canonized are given the title "Saint" as a good example for us to follow--- but we also believe that any Christian or person in heaven is a "saint." If a non-Christian made it to heaven, it would be due to extenuating circumstances such as invincible ignorance of Christ but that they had a disposition ordered toward accepting what God wants for him/her and thus they were saved by the blood of Christ in an extenuating means. We don't assume this happens, but we teach at this point in development that this is possible. In no case, do we teach there is salvation apart from Christ or His Church, however. As I said, a person must be joined to the Church formally or by some exceptional means.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Saints are an important witness to the truth of Christ. Formal canonization simply brings this witness to as many people as possible, so everyone can hear their story and learn from them.

 

[Incariol]

YouTube - Supplicatory Canon (Paraklesis) of St. Nektarios in English

 

[Byrd4God]

Catholic and Orthodox Christianity canonizes different virtuous and holy people as Saints. Protestanism has rejected Saints as a Catholic/Orthodox invention. What I would like to discuss is Saints in general. I believe in Saints unlike Protestants but unlike some Catholics/Orthodox I believe all people can become Saints and do not need to go through an official system of canonization or have to be Christian.

What is everyone's view concerning Saints? For those Catholics and Orthodox I ask why is it that only Christians can be Saints and great Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc wise men/women and healers are not recognized as Saints? For other Protestants I ask why is it that you reject Saints?

Here's my Protestant view on this-
I think all believers in Christ are saints... I reject Saints for a number of reasons, one of them is that I don't believe that they have the ability to intercede for us in prayer.

 

[Incariol]

Here's my Protestant view on this-
I think all believers in Christ are saints... I reject Saints for a number of reasons, one of them is that I don't believe that they have the ability to intercede for us in prayer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Why the ? Scripture addresses all believers in Jesus Christ as being saints and makes no artificial distinction between saints and Saints. No deceased saint is omnipresent and omniscient which are both necessary attributes if they are to hear and answer prayers offered in multiple places at the same time and are to answer those prayers. Only God is omnipresent and omnisicent.

 

[Incariol]

Why the ? Scripture addresses all believers in Jesus Christ as being saints and makes no artificial distinction between saints and Saints. No deceased saint is omnipresent and omniscient which are both necessary attributes if they are to hear and answer prayers offered in multiple places at the same time and are to answer those prayers. Only God is omnipresent and omnisicent.

Clearly..... What is your point? I don't know why you would think that omnipresence and omniscience are necessary....

 

[bbbbbbb]

Clearly..... What is your point? I don't know why you would think that omnipresence and omniscience are necessary....

If I were a Saint in heaven I would find it exceedingly difficult to hear more than one prayer at a time, so I would have to decide where I would like to hear prayers being offered to me as well as whose prayers I might listen to. Omnipresense neatly solves that problem so that multiple people offering simultaneous prayers to a deity or saint can justly believe their prayers are being heard. Otherwise, one might be forced to live with the strong uncertainty that the deity or saint did not hear my prayer. Thus, in many non-Christian religions, the priestly service in a temple where the deity is believed to dwell and hear prayers strictly limits individuals from praying. Although the OT clearly teaches concerning the tabernacle and later the temple being the House of God, His omnimpresence and ability to hear simultaneous prayers is never abrogated.

Omniscience is the simple partner of omnipresence. If a saint is limited to ordinary knowledge and understanding, then there is a greatly diminished incentive to pray to a saint when one can pray to God, who is omnisicient and has stated so.

 

[Incariol]

If I were a Saint in heaven I would find it exceedingly difficult to hear more than one prayer at a time, so I would have to decide where I would like to hear prayers being offered to me as well as whose prayers I might listen to. Omnipresense neatly solves that problem so that multiple people offering simultaneous prayers to a deity or saint can justly believe their prayers are being heard. Otherwise, one might be forced to live with the strong uncertainty that the deity or saint did not hear my prayer. Thus, in many non-Christian religions, the priestly service in a temple where the deity is believed to dwell and hear prayers strictly limits individuals from praying. Although the OT clearly teaches concerning the tabernacle and later the temple being the House of God, His omnimpresence and ability to hear simultaneous prayers is never abrogated.

Omniscience is the simple partner of omnipresence. If a saint is limited to ordinary knowledge and understanding, then there is a greatly diminished incentive to pray to a saint when one can pray to God, who is omnisicient and has stated so.

I still don't see how a saint not being omniscient is a problem. They are united to an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God who makes all things possible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I still don't see how a saint not being omniscient is a problem. They are united to an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God who makes all things possible.

Using that logic can lead to the most absurd conclusions. Universalists, for example, maintain that because God can save every person on earth, every person on earth is saved. Unitarians, on the other hand, maintain that because it is possible for God to be only one person, therefore God is only one entity and not a trinity. I do not know of a single heresy that cannot use this line of logic to their benefit.

If a saint is united so intrinsically with God (as in the Borg on Star Trek) why bother at all to pray to the saint since the saint and God are one and the same? OTOH, if a saint has anything resembling a separate identity, how is it that you believe they function in a deistic manner?

 

[Incariol]

Using that logic can lead to the most absurd conclusions. Universalists, for example, maintain that because God can save every person on earth, every person on earth is saved. Unitarians, on the other hand, maintain that because it is possible for God to be only one person, therefore God is only one entity and not a trinity. I do not know of a single heresy that cannot use this line of logic to their benefit.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't the one who put that verse in the Bible. You'll have to take your complaint up with the author.

If a saint is united so intrinsically with God (as in the Borg on Star Trek) why bother at all to pray to the saint since the saint and God are one and the same? OTOH, if a saint has anything resembling a separate identity, how is it that you believe they function in a deistic manner?

I'm not suggesting they operate in a deistic manner, neither do I suggest that there is some Borg-like assimilation.

 

[narnia59]

If I were a Saint in heaven I would find it exceedingly difficult to hear more than one prayer at a time, so I would have to decide where I would like to hear prayers being offered to me as well as whose prayers I might listen to. Omnipresense neatly solves that problem so that multiple people offering simultaneous prayers to a deity or saint can justly believe their prayers are being heard. Otherwise, one might be forced to live with the strong uncertainty that the deity or saint did not hear my prayer. Thus, in many non-Christian religions, the priestly service in a temple where the deity is believed to dwell and hear prayers strictly limits individuals from praying. Although the OT clearly teaches concerning the tabernacle and later the temple being the House of God, His omnimpresence and ability to hear simultaneous prayers is never abrogated.

Omniscience is the simple partner of omnipresence. If a saint is limited to ordinary knowledge and understanding, then there is a greatly diminished incentive to pray to a saint when one can pray to God, who is omnisicient and has stated so.

So how would you propose that the angels in heaven are aware of every time a sinner repents? Would you say that means they are omniscient and omnipresent, since you seem to believe that would be required for such a feat?