Tagged: saints Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • John T. Polk II 8:27 am on 2016-09-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , saints   

    9-7-2016 Saints Serving The Poor 

    There was no Roman Catholic Church in existence when Paul wrote: “To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:7 NKJV). They were “distributing to the needs of the saints” (Romans 12:13 NKJV).  Paul was “going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem” (Romans 15:25-26 NKJV).  There is more than just serving the poor, however, for “though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3 NKJV).   Serving without love “profits nothing.”  Corinthians “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8 NKJV) and were “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NKJV).

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

  • John T. Polk II 8:56 pm on 2016-09-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , saints   

    9-5/6-2016 Gospel Saints 

    The Apostle Paul wrote: “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2 NKJV).  There were “saints” in the church of God in Corinth.  Paul had “testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ,” “And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:5,8 NKJV).  “Saint” is short for “sanctified,” or set aside for spiritual purpose.  A “saint” calls on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”  When Saul of Tarsus was told to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16 NKJV), “he arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18 NKJV).  There were “saints” before any Roman Catholic Church.             

    This is Johnny Polk, with “Words of Wisdom” brought to you by the Oneida church of Christ.

  • J. Randal Matheny 3:58 am on 2016-02-14 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: saints, ,   

    Not a sinner 

    The world, in biblical terms, is humanity against God. The word sinner in the NT is the individual against God. So Christians may commit sin, Gal 6.1; Jas 3.2; 1 Jn 2.1, but are not sinners, in this sense. The NT does not call the saints of God sinners, for they have stopped practicing sin.

    Let us be careful that we do not, by the use of such statements as, “We’re all sinners,” justify the practice of sin and adjust ourselves to a tepid faith that accepts the lack of holiness among us, without which no one will see the Lord, Hb 12.14.

  • TFRStaff 6:29 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , saints,   


    With its widespread influence through its practices, teachings, and traditions, Roman Catholicism has tainted the original idea of the word “saint” in the minds of many to the extent that very few in the world would ever think of calling what the Bible describes as a Christian a “saint.”

    Notice the following concerning the process by which one may become a “saint” in the Catholic Church. “Canonization is an act or definitive sentence by which the Pope decrees that a servant of God, member of the Catholic Church and already declared blessed, be inscribed in the book of saints and be venerated in the universal Church with the cult given to all saints.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, Pg. 55). In other words, a person could read and study his Bible, obey the gospel through faith, repentance, confession and baptism, and thus be saved from past sins (Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; Romans 10:10), do all he could to please God, die a faithful Christian and go to heaven eternally, but never be recognized as a “saint” because the Pope did not declare it and he never belonged to the Catholic Church. (More …)

    • Joseph Richardson 7:37 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

      The truth is that we’re talking about two different uses of the word “saint” here. In Scripture the word ἅγιος (hagios) means “holy, set apart” — and that word is translated sanctus in Latin, the origin of the word saint. The saints in Scripture are the set apart ones, those who have been called out of this world by Christ (that is what ἐκκλησία [ekklesia] literally means, a calling out). And nobody in the Catholic Church denies that this is the way that word is used in Scripture, or that the word can aptly be used that way in referring to all the saints (“set apart ones”) alive even today. But over the course of the first few centuries of the Church, the word came more and more to refer to the holy ones who have been set apart by sanctification, whom the Lord has made holy by His work in their lives. And sure, to be formally recognized as a “saint” on the liturgical calendar of the Church, there is a formal process of canonization — but that does not mean that one is not a saint until we say so. It’s a frequent saying that “any cemetery is likely to be full of the bodies of unknown saints” — that even being said of Protestant cemeteries. God makes saints, not the Church.

      • Eugene Adkins 10:56 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

        So as usual it comes down to the Catholic Church using words and practicing things that sound biblical but they actually have absolutely no foundational support that can be found in the scriptures? I believe that was the author’s point.

        • Joseph Richardson 11:04 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          No fundamental support can be found — for what? For the fact that God saves people? For the fact that he brings them to perfection and glory in heaven? Oh, what about, “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, … to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect …” (Hebrews 12:22–24)? Just because the common usage of a word evolves over time does not mean that either the former idea — that we are holy ones, called out by grace — is discarded, or that the latter idea – that the souls of just men are made perfect in the heavenly Jerusalem — is a new or unfounded notion.

          • Eugene Adkins 11:26 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

            No fundamental support can be found — for what?

            For creating a special class of people that has no scriptural basis.

        • Joseph Richardson 11:37 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          I’m confused by that statement, Eugene. Do you not believe that those chosen people who have been saved by grace (1 Pet 2:9, Eph 1:4, 2:5, Col 1:22, 2 Thes 1:10, etc.), who have been brought to His eternal glory in heaven (Rom 2:7, 2 Cor 4:17, 2 Tim 2:10, 1 Pet 5:10, etc.) — are “a special class of people”?

        • Eugene Adkins 11:50 am on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          To quote your own words: “The truth is that we’re talking about two different uses of the word “saint” here.

          If the Catholic Church were simply saying that the “canonized” people were only what they already claim for them to be then why make the claim to begin with? Why not make that claim for every individual instead of certain people chosen through a process that has no biblical foundation whatsoever?

          It’s because, as the pomp and circumstance shows when the “canonization” takes place, that when the Catholic Church proclaims someone to be a “canonized saint” they are creating a distinction, which is necessitated by the very meaning of the word “canonized”, that is separate and apart from the biblical usage of the word – or else there would be no such distinction to be made.

          The Catholic Church uses the word “saint” in a way that causes it to be reserved for individuals of their choosing – or else there would be no choosing to be done at all; for if all were saints of “that recognized stature” then all would be saints and the whole “canonization” process would be completely useless.

          I don’t think there should be anything too confusing about what I’m saying here.

        • Joseph Richardson 12:18 pm on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          I think you might have the wrong idea. Every individual who is in heaven is a saint, whether they are formally canonized or not. Very often we celebrate the “many unknown saints in heaven,” or speak of people we might have known who haven’t been formally canonized as being saints. There is nothing intrinsically “elite” about the canon of saints, other than the fact that they have been canonized: they are popes, priests, nuns, laypeople, farmers, teachers, workers of all kinds, married and single, young and old, European, African, Asian, and Native American.

          All being “canonized” means is that we really, really, really know, without any doubt, that the person is in heaven. Why not declare that “all people” who have died are saints? Because it’s possible they are not all in heaven! Why the process of canonization? Why set apart some people to say that absolutely, assuredly, they are in heaven? Because, yes, it makes a distinction — because some people really were extraordinarily holy people on earth. Look at the canon of saints, especially the early ones, the ones that even many Protestants accept and embrace and celebrate — the likes of Ignatius, Polycarp, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Francis — and it becomes evident why they have been set apart as distinct: because they distinguished themselves in holiness — or rather, God distinguished them by His awesome works of grace. The Church does not make saints; God does. We only recognize the work of His hand.

          You are absolutely, completely right when you say that “if all were saints of ‘that recognized stature’ then all would be saints and the whole “canonization” process would be completely useless.” And that’s exactly, a nutshell, why we do it. 🙂

        • Eugene Adkins 12:30 pm on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          So we’re back to saying that the Catholic Church does indeed recognize “special saints” of its choosing, one without one shred of biblical merit – a sanctified saint of sorts that is separate and apart from, and even above due to their classification, from the rest of the “common” saints.

          We could’ve saved a bit of time here 🙂

        • Joseph Richardson 12:40 pm on 2014-05-21 Permalink | Reply

          They are set apart only in that they are known.

          The biblical foundation is the fact that, yes, Christ does save and bring us to perfection and glory in heaven. Beyond that, who needs any further justification to celebrate those brothers and sisters in Christ who are praiseworthy? The biggest problem with Protestants is that they miss out on doing all sorts of good and beneficial things because they must look for a “biblical foundation” to do something. 😉 Do we need a “biblical foundation” in the secular world to create a “hall of fame” for great people in sports, science, or good deeds? If we can celebrate sports figures, why can’t we celebrate holy figures?

          The formal process of canonization as we know it today, by the way, is a fairly modern development. The canon of “saints” originated in the earliest days of the Church as a list of martyrs — whom I don’t think even you would have a problem with setting apart and remembering and celebrating. It was only several centuries later that “confessors” — those people who confessed the name of Christ but did not necessarily win a martyr’s crown — began to be enlisted, usually by popular and unanimous acclamation. Forgive us if today we have to be all scientific and precise about it. 😉 Folks have been declaring Pope John Paul II a “saint” since the day he died and even before. In the early centuries of the Church, they would have accepted that without any further proof.

  • Richard Mansel 1:34 pm on 2010-01-19 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , saints,   

    Reclaim Biblical Words 

    The word most often used of God’s people between Acts and Revelation is saints. Yet, we have allowed the world to redefine Biblical words so that we do not use saints and holy anymore.  We must reclaim them! I begin a series of articles today called, Life in a Sanctified Kingdom (1).

    • Randal Matheny 1:43 pm on 2010-01-19 Permalink | Reply

      We’re using the word on BNc.

    • Randal Matheny 3:33 pm on 2010-01-19 Permalink | Reply

      Sorry, the item jumped somehow, see on MK pet reply …

      • Richard Mansel 4:11 pm on 2010-01-19 Permalink | Reply

        Don’t understand what you mean.

        • Randal Matheny 4:21 pm on 2010-01-19 Permalink | Reply

          I clicked to reply to the MK pet post, and typed my text then hit reply, and I was under your post. This happens on occasion, not sure of the cause, nor the cure.

      • jimnewy 1:29 am on 2010-01-20 Permalink | Reply

        Happens to me quite often. Sometimes I have had to go back to the dashboard, then back to the site to get to the proper post to make a reply.

    • Mike Riley 4:09 pm on 2010-01-19 Permalink | Reply

      Richard, You are exactly right when you said, “nothing good ever comes from making Satan happy.” And heaven is indeed “worth missing everything else.”

    • jimnewy 1:33 am on 2010-01-20 Permalink | Reply

      There are in my opinion two words that are over used and misused. The word Christian is one of them. It has lost it’s original meaning as a follower of Christ. I will use the word saints or disciples instead if I can and depending on the company present. The other word is church. It has also lost it’s true meaning. I prefer to use the word congregation in it’s place. Just my preferences.

      • Richard Mansel 1:35 am on 2010-01-20 Permalink | Reply

        Jim, that makes a lot of sense.

        • mtmcvb 11:47 am on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

          I think two other words that have completely changed meaning from Biblical times are proud and pride. There is not one instance of which I am
          aware that the words are used in a positive sense. I think the change makes it difficult for individuals to properly understand the principle,
          especially children. They hear their parents tell them they are proud of them, then hear that pride is sinful. We have attempted to counteract this
          misunderstanding by making degrees of pride or different definitions for different circumstances. While I may be straining gnats, I
          always attempted to avoid using the two words when speaking to or about my children. I would tell them I was very pleased. I
          would tell them that their actions, or speech or behavior had made me happy. I would tell them I was encouraged. But I did not tell
          them I was proud of them (even though when they were older I would accomadatively let them know. I had attempted to teach them
          that being proud and prideful as the Bible defined it was wrong.) Just humble thoughts.

        • Randal Matheny 12:08 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

          Rom.15.17: In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.
          Phil.2.16: holding fast to the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

        • mtmcvb 3:42 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

          You are not quoting from the KJV. And I believe if you will look in the Greek, the verses you quote use a different word than is normally translated as pride or proud. This demonstrates my very point. The definition of the word in english has changed since KJV was done. and such a change does lend to misunderstanding of what pride truly is. Humble thoughts. Mark

    • Randal Matheny 3:48 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

      Oh, I didn’t know this was a KJV discussion.

      • mtmcvb 3:58 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

        The point is that the word pride was the word chosen by the KJV translators to represent what the Greek and Hebrew words conveyed. The words pride and proud have evolved over time. It was not necessarily a KJV discussion but a discussion of the fact that pride and proud have changed meanings. If you will do a study on the greek and hebrew words translated by KJV translators you will discover that the words pride and proud were never used in a postive way. Now if newer translations translate other words from the greek and hebrew as pride and proud, then something changed. And that change was that now pride and proud are presented in the scriptures as a positive thing rather than always a negative.

    • Randal Matheny 4:31 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

      Hi, Mark, I didn’t mean to sound short in the previous comment, just rushed. What changes is language, as all languages do, and we can’t use a 1611 slice of the English language to establish a standard for how we should speak English today. Regardless of what Greek words stand behind the English, translations must accept the usage of words today in order to communicate. So we can’t, it seems to me, take words and force them into a previous set of meanings that have sinced morphed. The old meaning can’t be stuffed into the modern word.

      • mtmcvb 5:27 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

        I am about to scream. I have twice typed a long reply only to have the system reject my post and delete it…… arrggh. I have been up almost 24 hours and this is quite irritating. In a nutshell, I do not fully agree with you regarding ‘stuffing’ old meanings into the modern world. Sometimes older meanings give a better sense of the scripture. But I am not going to type this all again. I will just let my straning gnats be my private problem :>)))) mark

        • Randal Matheny 5:41 pm on 2010-01-21 Permalink | Reply

          Sorry about the disappearing replies. (Actually, I put a hoax on you.) I’ve not had that problem, but seems my replies like to jump from one post to another. Daniel has reported this as well, I think. Enjoyed the exchange. Get some rest, brother!

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc