Saints

=======================================
Further, your selective quotation ignores the other mentions of saints in Colossians
=================================

You would not expect me to quote the entire book, would you? So I select the relevant portion.

==================================
1. First, Paul's letter is addressed to the congregation of gentile converts at Colosse, so these are already devout folk. Paul begins his letter by mentioning the love the Colossians have for the saints. This entails that there is a distinction between the saints and the Colossian devout.
========================================

Verse 1 says "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus ... To the saints in Colossae and faithful brothers in Christ ..."

I do not at all see that the faithful brothers in Christ Jesus are not also saints. Rather among all the saints in Colossea Paul knows that some need to be singled out for particular mention. They are faithful. Comparitively some were more faithful saints. For example latter Paul speaks of a particular Epaphras "who is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf" (1:7)

He was held up as an example. Ephaphras was exemplary. Among all the saints that composed the entire church in Colossae, Ephaphras was set apart for special mention because of his exemplary faithfulness.

==================================
Later, in Colossians 1:22, Paul claims "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel". This claim entails that although the devout are reconciled by Christ, the devout are not yet "holy in his sight, without blemish...".
=================================

Positionally ther are holy because they are set reconciled to God. Dispositionally, they are indeed in the process of being made holy in behavior, in character.

The word reconciled is also used in the New Testament with regard to position and disposition.

1.) In position, as relates to the past, the Christians have been "reconciled":

"For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled." (Rom. 5:10)

As to the past, these saints have been reconciled to God through the redemptive death of Christ. As to the future they will be "much more" saved in the realm of His indwelling divine life.

" ... much more we WILL BE saved in His life, having BEEN reconciled."

And part of this future reconciliation in the sphere of Christ's life is also discribed elsewhere as reconciliation. For example, Second Corinthians 5:18-20:

2.) "But all things are out from God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Christ and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation; Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them, and has put in us the word of reconciliation.

On behalf of Christ then we are ambassadors, as God entreats you though us; we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." ( 2 Cor. 5:18-20)

Paul and his co-workers are writing to Christians who have been reconciled to God. Yet the apostles are entreating this reconciled ones to BE reconciled to God.

This passage highlights that for the believer in Christ there is a positional reconcilation as to the past. And there is the need to "BE reconciled" as to dispositon. This is the same concept of positional sanctification and dispositional sanctification.

The saints are holy because of being set apart in Christ. And the saints are being made holy in character and disposition by growth in the divine life.

==============================
They will be if [they] continue in [their] faith. But that word, 'holy', has the same Greek root as 'saint'. So, the upshot here is that saints are those among the devout that have substantial spiritual development.
===================================

That there SHOULD be spiritual development is a fact not to be argued with. That only those thus developed are "saints" and others are not, is wrong.

In the New Testament the difference between the matured and the under matured is not that the former are saints and the latter are not. Rather the former saints are those who "overcome" and the latter are those who are "defeated". This is brought out clearly in Revelation 2 and 3.

We may say "he who overcomes" is called an "overcomer"[/b]. The word, "overcomer" may not be in the New Testament. But "he who overcomes" is there.

Paul's word about continueing in the faith, is a warning to be a saint that "overcomes" rather than a saint that ends up defeated.

A backslidden Christian is still a "saint". At the moment he is a defeated saint. For example, the brother in Corinth who was living in open fornication, was a defeated saint. And the failure was so severe that Paul instructed such a one to be removed from the fellowship. Latter, he seems to have repented and been reunited to the fellowship of the church.

Your phrase "devout" might be the equivalent of the biblcal phrase "he who overcomes" (Rev. 2:7,11,17, 26, 3:5, 12,21)

If we continue in the faith we Christians will be those who "overcome" and are not defeated. When Jesus Christ comes again, there will be saints who are overcomers and saints who are defeated. But they are all saints.

At least one part of EVERY Christian is made holy, the human spirit. That is the kernel and nucleus of their being. Because the Holy Spirit has been "organically" joined to thier human spirit making the two "one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

Whether that Christian is defeated or overcoming "he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit". And "The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God" (Rom. 8:16)

Whoever recieves the Holy Spirit, part of his being is one spirit with the Lord, and he is therefore holy in at least that part. That man or woman is "joined to the Lord" and is sanctified by virtue of his or her position in Christ.

Paul tells the Corinthians, some of which were soulish, natural, fleshy, and immature - "Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you ?" ( 3:16) That is collectively, the church in Corinth is the holy temple of God regardless of the condition of the believers - " ... for the temple of God is holy, and such are you." (3:16,17)

Then individually their physical bodies are also a temple of the Holy Spirit - "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own ?" (6:19)

Even the body of the sinful brother who was living in fornication still had his body as a temple of the Holy Spirit. He was out of his own hands and belonged to the Lord. Since he belonged to the Lord Jesus, he too was positionally holy though dispositionally he was a moral mess at that time.

Belonging to Jesus Christ places a man in a holy position and thus makes him sanctified - a "saint".

=================================
Finally, in Corinthians 1:25-27, Paul again distinguishes the saints from the devout converts. The saints are those to whom has been disclosed the fullness of God's word, the mystery, and to whom "God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery", including the devout, converted gentiles that constitute the local congregations Paul is addressing.
=====================================

I see nothing in First Corinthians 1:25-27 that suggests all believers are not saints.

I suspect that you really meant Colossians 1:25-27.

This passage does not establish any special class of "saints" among all Christians. Where do you get that idea ?

Christ is the hope of glory in EVERY Christian. He is not the hope of glory only in some special class of Christians called saints. Since the believers all have this calling Paul warns everyman that he might present every man "full-grown in Christ"

Paul does not say he labors to present them all as saints. He says he labors to present them all full-grown. This is opposed to them being presented to Christ as under developed in spiritual growth or backslidden or immature. This is a matter of them growing.

Point out one verse which says that only after a certain level of spiritual growth, THEN, a Christian becomes a "saint". He does not become a saint by being full grown. He becomes a saint by being forgiven and set apart in Jesus Christ.

Even the brother that was so sinful in Corinth was set apart in Jesus Christ. He too was a saint. There are normal saints and abnormal saints. There are immature saints and relatively more mature saints. Paul's labors is that all the saints would be full-grown. That is merely his desire and labor.

The fact of life is that not all saints will mature in a timely fashion. All will eventually mature. But some will mature late. And some will mature in a timely way.

================================
Your final two arguments are just bad.

Just because the rich blessing of Christ will be equally shared among the devout, it doesn't follow that all the devout are similarly spiritually developed, or that all are equally holy, or mature.
===================================

All Christians may not be at the level of development they should be. But they are positionally all equally holy. They are all set apart...

===============================
So, nothing you've posted here makes your interpretation particularly plausible, and most of the texts you've referenced actually weigh against your interpretation.

And, concerning your subsequent edits:

All your quoted passages are worthless to your position. Just because all the devout and faithful will receive grace, it does not follow that all the devout and faithful are saints. Let me repeat this, since you seem not to get this point: The claim 'all Christians are recipients of grace', even if true, does not entail or even support the claim 'all Christians are saints'.
=================================

I understand your objection. But you are still wrong that sainthood is a state attained by some Christians and not by others.

If you are talking Buddhism perhaps sainthood is attained. And Roman Catholicism DID incorporate many foreign ideas into a mixture. They have a special "SAINT" for this and for that. Even the Buddha they made a "SAINT".

And they elevated, for example, Mother Teresa to be a "Saint". This is a religious concept that is foreign to the Bible.

They call Paul - "Saint Paul". They call Peter "Saint Peter". And if you are a Catholic you may assume that you probably will not "achieve" Sainthood. I think you are enfluenced by these concepts.

Can you point out one passage in which "Saint" is placed before the name of someone as a proper noun, as a title?

You can find it in Catholic tradition. You cannot find it in the Bible. To be fair, neither do we see the word Trinity in the Bible. But we see the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all refered to as God.

You so not see "SAINT so and so" in the bible. But you do not see the attaining of SAINTHOOD some time after being redeemed as a special level of elevation.

=============================
In fact, my interpretation is better, given your other doctrinal commitments. On my interpretation, we, the flawed and corrupted, can still benefit from the redemptive power and sacrifice of Christ, and receive his grace despite not being as spiritually advanced, mature, and wise as the saints. Even the lowly are saved,
====================================

I never said the lowly were not saved. I really don't know why you are directing some of these arguments my way.

I have been saying that all who have been redeemed are saints.

==============================
saint or not. To claim that all Christians are saints is to seriously misconstrue all of Paul's writings on the matter. Jude 1:3 doesn't support your position either. First, just because we have a common salvation, it doesn't follow that we are all saints.
===================================

Yes it does. The believer's salvation is Christ. And in virtue that the redeemed sinner is placed in Christ and justified, she or he is positionally made holy.

A Christian is a saint. It is being in CHRIST that makes them set apart unto God. They have passed out of their own hands and into the hands of God. They belong to God and are on holy ground so to speak.

In this sense it is not the eradication of something evil in their behavior. It is their faith which is "most holy faith" which has set them apart unto God. It is the position that they have not been placed in by God.

================================
Second, the passage itself indicates the author recognizes a distinction between those to whom the letter is addressed and the saints to whom wisdom was passed down.
=======================================

I have not yet even located the word "wisdom" in the epistle. Let me ask you this:

Jude says the faith is holy. Jude says the faith belongs to his audience: "But you, beloved, building up yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit" (v.20)

Do you think a person can possess this "most holy faith" and not be on holy ground set apart unto the Holy God ?

The faith they possess is itself holy. They are positionally made holy just in virtue that they possess this "most holy faith" . If he does not possess this "most holy faith" he is not a Christian.

One has the holy faith or one does not. You and I may be fooled. But God is never fooled. And in His eyes a possession of the most holy faith puts them on a position of sanctication unto God. On such ground they are saints.

Originally posted by Dan St John
Your "appearence" is not what I found in bad taste. It was that you chose to interject a slam at priests into what, you have claimed, is a sincere request for information. Not because you question one specific religion or other.

I was not raised Catholic. Rather I was raised a combination of Baptist and Methodist. I chose to be Catholic after s ...[text shortened]... d she saw and heard Christmas Mass -- even though it was taking place miles away.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel offended by my question, that you feel it's bad taste to ask a question in order to learn more about things I don't know much about.

You know what I want to know - how do you propose I should formulate the question, which is not offencive, nor bad tast?

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================
So, nothing you've posted here makes your interpretation particularly plausible, and most of the texts you've referenced actually weigh against your interpretation.

And, concerning your subsequent edits:

All your quoted passages are worthless to your position. Just because all the devout and faithful will receive g of sanctication unto God. On such ground they are saints.

========

You

========

need

========

an

========

editor.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]========

You

========

need

========

an

========

editor.[/b]

Okay. I need to learn to use an editor better.

I'm use to doing things a certain way on this forum which is probably not the best way.

Originally posted by jaywill
Okay. I need to learn to use an editor better.

I'm use to doing things a certain way on this forum which is probably not the best way.

Give me a day to work through your posts.

Times up.

At the conversion of a man to be a Christian, God comes into his heart and made it His temple. In Solomon's day God dwelt in a temple made of ston. To day since the resurrection of Jesus God dwells in a temple composed of living believers.

The fact of the indwelling of God in a man makes him holy. Collectively, the body of believers are the holy temple of God. And individually their physical bodies are each a temple of God:

Collectively - "Do you [church in Corinth] not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you ? If anyone destroys the temple of God God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and such are you." (1 Cor. 3:16,17)

Individually - "Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own ? For you have been bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." (1 Cor. 6:19,20)

The local church is holy. And the individual body of the believer is holy. Therefore every Christian believer is a "saint".

Being the holy temple, they are holy to the Lord.
Being bought with a price and belonging to the holy God, they are holy.

Each Christian is also a "member" of Christ Who of course is holy. That also makes them holy:

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ ? Shall I take the member of Christ and make them members of a prostitute ? Absolutely not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute us one body ? For He says, 'The Two shall be one flesh.'

But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit." (1 Cor. 6:15-17)

The member of Christ, the individual body of the Christian, is holy. And the Holy Spirit has been united and blended with his human spirit in regeneration, to make the two spirits "one spirit". So the Holy Spirit of the Holy God has been dispensed into his being and constituted his innermost being "one spirit" with Holiness Himself.

That is EVERY Christian. And that makes EVERY Christian a holy "saint".

By definition then, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is with the saints, ALL of them. And this is testified in the final sentence of the whole Bible.

"The grace of the Lord Jesus, be with all the saints. Amen." (Rev. 22:21)

Originally posted by jaywill
Times up.

At the conversion of a man to be a Christian, God comes into his heart and made it His temple. In Solomon's day God dwelt in a temple made of ston. To day since the resurrection of Jesus God dwells in a temple composed of living believers.

The fact of the indwelling of God in a man makes him holy. [b]Collectively, the body of believer ...[text shortened]... e grace of the Lord Jesus, be with all the saints. Amen." (Rev. 22:21) [/b][/b]

Meh, I don't buy it. But the distinction between positional and practical/dispositional holiness makes all the difference here. If you want to reserve 'saint' or think Paul does, for all the positionally holy, that's fine. But there is still an elite class; the more mature, who've also had their motivations and dispositions transformed. Everybody gets saved, but the practical/dispositionally holy are still, in a sense, more holy (since they have a form of holiness the merely positionally holy do not). You've admitted as much, and this really obviates our debate. You've granted what I aimed to establish.

===================================
Meh, I don't buy it. But the distinction between positional and practical/dispositional holiness makes all the difference here. If you want to reserve 'saint' or think Paul does, for all the positionally holy, that's fine. But there is still an elite class; the more mature, who've also had their motivations and dispositions transformed. Everybody gets saved, but the practical/dispositionally holy are still, in a sense, more holy (since they have a form of holiness the merely positionally holy do not). You've admitted as much, and this really obviates our debate. You've granted what I aimed to establish.
=====================================

I have not granted you that not all Christians are saints. I have refuted you on that point.

By elaborating on the defeated saint and the overcoming saint I have not granted you that the overcoming are saints and the defeated are not.

But you have heard me expound enough. Let's consult someone else.

The Oxford Guide to the Bible by Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan

I will not quote the entire article on saints. I will quote the portion essential to what I have tried to explain to you. But to be fair I will inform you that the Old Testament, they say, did sometimes use the Hebrew equivalent to mean deities.

Now as to NT saints. Please follow carefully.

" In the Bible, therefore, the word "saints" refers to "holy people" - holy, however, not primarily in a moral sense, but in the sense of being specially marked out as God's people. Thus, just as the people of Israel are "saints," "holy ones," a nation set apart by God for the worship and service of God, so in the New Testament those who comprise the church are also called holy, "saints," because they too are set apart to God, God's own people (Rom. 1.7; Phil. 1.1; passim). The church is seen as the new Israel, the new community separated from the world around it and dedicated to God, the people of the end times to whom God will make good His promises (cf. Dan 7.18,27; see also John 17.11; Acts 9.13; 1 Pet. 2.9,10). The term is also applied to dead members of the community (Matt. 27.52; Rev. 16.6; etc.), though this is not its primary biblical usage. "

Now if you have absorbed what these scholars have said about the whole community being that of "saints" we can proceed to the moral obligation aspect to match the positional aspect:

Metzger and Coogan continue:

"Moral and ethical ideas were never wholly absent from the word "saints," both in the Hebrew Bible (Lev. 17-26; 19.2-18) and in the New Testament (1 Pet. 1,16; cf. Matt.5.8; 1 Tim. 1.5; 2 Tim. 2.22). Because God is holy, that is, because God is perfect in goodness and justice and love and purity (Lev. 19.2), it is EXPECTED [ my emphasis jaywill] that His people will pattern their lives accordingly (Lev. 19.2-18; 1 Pet. 1.16). Hence, *ethics [sic] belongs together with *religion [sic]. Relationship with the God of the Bible demands a moral response in accord with the character of God."

[Oxford Guide To The Bible, Edited by Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan, Oxford University Press, pg. 668,669]

So I reiterate that all Christians truly purchased by Christ's redemption are saints. All saints are positionally holy in that they belong to and are set aside unto God. All saints SHOULD be dispositionally holy. The fact of life is that there are normal saints and abnormal saints. There will be overcoming saints and defeated saints. And Jesus Christ is the one who will make that judgment.

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
Meh, I don't buy it. But the distinction between positional and practical/dispositional holiness makes all the difference here. If you want to reserve 'saint' or think Paul does, for all the positionally holy, that's fine. But there is still an elite class; the more mature, who've also had their motivations and ed saints. And Jesus Christ is the one who will make that judgment.

Fair enough. I think the distinction between positional and dispositional holiness; really the distinction between being set-apart by and for God and being morally and spiritually transformed, is the important one. My only quibble is that this seems such a departure from the colloquial use of 'saint', but I guess that is to be expected. Interesting what follows from this; that a Christian can be both a saint and periodically wicked and vicious and weak.

==============================
Fair enough. I think the distinction between positional and dispositional holiness; really the distinction between being set-apart by and for God and being morally and spiritually transformed, is the important one. My only quibble is that this seems such a departure from the colloquial use of 'saint', but I guess that is to be expected. Interesting what follows from this; that a Christian can be both a saint and periodically wicked and vicious and weak.
==================================

Thankyou. That's mighty big of you.

Now out of curiosity. Are you an atheist who was brought up Catholic in your youth ?

Originally posted by jaywill
==============================
Fair enough. I think the distinction between positional and dispositional holiness; really the distinction between being set-apart by and for God and being morally and spiritually transformed, is the important one. My only quibble is that this seems such a departure from the colloquial use of 'saint', but I guess that ou.

Now out of curiosity. Are you an atheist who was brought up Catholic in your youth ?

My maternal grandparents were Polish, a Jew and a Catholic, but both became atheists after WW2. My mother was a hippy, and seeker. She became a disciple to an Indian mystic when I was young. My other grandparents were evangelical baptists, and said crazy, end-of-the world, fire-and-brimstone stuff. My dad thought the whole issue was irrelevant.

What's your background?

Originally posted by bbarr
My maternal grandparents were Polish, a Jew and a Catholic, but both became atheists after WW2. My mother was a hippy, and seeker. She became a disciple to an Indian mystic when I was young. My other grandparents were evangelical baptists, and said crazy, end-of-the world, fire-and-brimstone stuff. My dad thought the whole issue was irrelevant.

What's your background?

My father was a Presbyterian theologian of the social gospel side. He was a Civil Rights worker and author of books on history and theology.

My mother was Baptist and became Presbyterian. My father exposed me to the Christian faith but was very liberal and magnanimus. During the 70s I became very interested in Zen Buddhism. He did nothing to desuade me.

Grandparents were both believers in Jesus.
My brothers and sister were of varying levels of skeptcism. I do not know exactly what they really believe. One brother died of AIDS in the gay community in San Fransisco.

Originally posted by jaywill
One brother died of AIDS in the gay community in San Fransisco.

Ugh, I'm so sorry. That's a horrible loss.

Originally posted by bbarr
Ugh, I'm so sorry. That's a horrible loss.

Thanks for your sympathies. It was a very difficult matter.


How come your chess scores are getting better and better ?

My brother is a level 1700. You're getting up in the 2000 range.