bloodofthelamb:
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the SAINTS which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus(Ephe 1:1.

Dear Father thank you for your "eternal truth" which is your power unto salvation. I pray as we believe may you confirmed it in our lives. Amen!

God has made us saints through Christ. We're the saints of God through Christ Jesus. You don't need to be canonized by mortal men before you could be a saint. You don't need to die before you can become a saint.

Believers in Christ Jesus are saints. While those who have not yet believe in Him can also become saints through simple faith in Christ Jesus. Our good works cannot make us saints, neither can our puny effort do. Jesus is the author of our sainthood. In Him all humanity have a chance to become saints of God.

It is foolishness to believe that the puny declaration of men can establish someone as a saint. Say no to the doctrine of men.
Say no to the deceit and lies of the devil.

Keep believing and keep winning! Peace!

MuttleyLaff:
Teach brother.
I wonder, whether or not, self-professed catholics,
the likes of Ubenedictus, 9inches, Syncan, italo etcetera agree to the emboldened up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

I think you are misjudging by attacking a straw man. No knowledgeable Catholic would argue against this - we are saints. Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

Aren't we all saints? https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/arent-we-all-saints

9inches:
[s]I think you are misjudging by attacking a straw man.[/s]
No knowledgeable Catholic would argue against this - we are saints.
[s]Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said,
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”[/s]
Aren't we all saints?
h t t ps://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/arent-we-all-saints

I hear you brother

I believe Jesus died,was buried and ROSE AGAIN I believe in His blood as a sacrifice for alls sins. I'M A SAINT!I believe Jesus died,was buried and ROSE AGAIN I believe in His blood as a sacrifice for alls sins. I'M A SAINT!I believe Jesus died,was buried and ROSE AGAIN I believe in His blood as a sacrifice for alls sins. I'M A SAINT!

DEEW:
I believe Jesus died,was buried and ROSE AGAIN I believe in His blood as a sacrifice for alls sins. I'M A SAINT!I believe Jesus died,was buried and ROSE AGAIN I believe in His blood as a sacrifice for alls sins. I'M A SAINT!I believe Jesus died,was buried and ROSE AGAIN I believe in His blood as a sacrifice for alls sins. I'M A SAINT!

Indeed you are to the glory of God. Hallelujah!

MuttleyLaff:
Teach brother.
I wonder, whether or not, self-professed catholics,
the likes of Ubenedictus, 9inches, Syncan, italo etcetera agree to the emboldened up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

Its no problem at all o, just that when you guys try everything to disparage the Church, you simply miss the point. Jesus appointed twelve apostles, the apostles elected Mattias to replace Judas Ischariot Acts1:23, the names of the twelve are written in heaven as seen in Rev.21:14. However St. Paul still used the name apostle in referring to himself 1Cor.15:9. He was not one of the twelve appointed by Jesus while on earth, neither was he elected by the apostles. So is it that when you name the twelve apostles, you now confuse yourself with Paul, or God is now a God of disorder for that reason? See how hard you're working to say the church is wrong for calling holy ones in heaven saints because it was used for those on earth, I just tire for you folks.

Syncan:
Its no problem at all o, just that when you guys try everything to disparage the Church, you simply miss the point.

"John, to the seven congregations {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} which are in Asia:
Grace be unto you and peace from him who is and who was
and who is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne"
- Revelation 1:4

It's you who simply misses and/or missed the crucial point about ekklesia and what it is. The word "church" does not come from the Greek word ekklesia

Ekklesia has always been, case in point, as seen in Revelation 1:4 above, where and/or when Ignatius of Antioch, who incidentally was a disciple of the author of the above Revelation 1:4 verse, as in the person of Apostle John, coined the "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, it was used to mean the called out ones universally, in distinct to the local, town or city assemblies

Syncan:
Jesus appointed twelve apostles, the apostles elected Mattias to replace Judas Ischariot Acts1:23, the names of the twelve are written in heaven as seen in Rev.21:14.
However St. Paul still used the name apostle in referring to himself 1Cor.15:9.
He was not one of the twelve appointed by Jesus while on earth, neither was he elected by the apostles.
So is it that when you name the twelve apostles, you now confuse yourself with Paul, or God is now a God of disorder for that reason?
See how hard you're working to say the church is wrong for calling holy ones in heaven saints because it was used for those on earth, I just tire for you folks.

"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead--"
- Galatians 1:1

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope"
- 1 Timothy 1:1

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,"
- 1 Corinthians 1:1

Interesting, so your beef is with Paul being an apostle

MuttleyLaff:
"John, to the seven congregations {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} which are in Asia:
Grace be unto you and peace from him who is and who was
and who is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne"
- Revelation 1:4

It's you who simply misses and/or missed the crucial point about ekklesia and what it is
The word "church" does not come from the Greek word ekklesia

Ekklesia has always been, case in point is Revelation 1:4 above
When Ignatius, who incidentally was a disciple of the author of the above Revelation 1:4 verse
as in the person of apostle John, coined the "ekklesia katholicos" phrase,
it was used to mean the called out ones universally, in distinct to the local, town or city assemblies

"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead--"
- Galatians 1:1

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope"
- 1 Timothy 1:1

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,"
- 1 Corinthians 1:1

Interesting, so your beef is with Paul being an apostle

I do wonder what joy you gain in deception. How trying to look smart and not honest will help your life as a christian. I am glad you're not the only one God has blessed with a functional grey matter, so those who read us can draw their inferences as well. How those quotes exonerate you from what I wrote, I do not know. Very clearly I stated that St. Paul addressed himself as apostle, you started copying and pasting everywhere he did that, to support me or what? If you do not understand my post, then I can't discuss with you, If you understood and simply want to deceive, then I don't have time to waste.

Yes, you don't have beef with Paul calling himself an apostle when he isn't one of the twelve. How you can explain this and can't understand the use of saint for members of the church in heaven, only hatred can tell.

Syncan:



I do wonder what joy you gain in deception. How trying to look smart and not honest will help your life as a christian. I am glad you're not the only one God has blessed with a functional grey matter, so those who read us can draw their inferences as well. How those quotes exonerate you from what I wrote, I do not know. Very clearly I stated that St. Paul addressed himself as apostle, you started copying and pasting everywhere he did that, to support me or what? If you do not understand my post, then I can't discuss with you, If you understood and simply want to deceive, then I don't have time to waste.

Yes, you don't have beef with Paul calling himself an apostle when he isn't one of the twelve. How you can explain this and can't understand the use of saint for members of the church in heaven, only hatred can tell.

I know the context you are trying to bring in but I believe it misses the point for there is no disparity between the Apostle Paul was, compared to the other apostles. If anything, he seemed to be above them courtesy of the level of revelation he brought to the body of Christ.

That aside, there is nothing in the Book of Revelations that suggests that Matthias was a Godly replacement. It even lends credence to the reason we heard nothing of him afterwards. Jesus did not appoint his apostles by casting lots and the 11 who did erred. When it was time to appoint another apostle, we saw who Jesus himself appointed and it was Paul. That is exactly why Paul on a myriad of occasions was quick to point that his apostleship came from Jesus himself not by any man. That much is pretty clear.

Bringing this into the discourse, Apostle as the word Apostolos meaning sent ones is an office/ a calling and to that effect it was used rightly and not generically as you maybe aiming to imply. Ephesians tells us there are select Pastors, Prophets, Apostles, Teachers and Evangelists.

But when it comes to the issue of sainthood, it was not an office created by canonization. It was clearly and repeatedly used to refer to ALL members of the body of Christ. As a result, the OP is correct.

Maestro21:


I know the context you are trying to bring in but I believe it misses the point for there is no disparity between the Apostle Paul was, compared to the other apostles. If anything, he seemed to be above them courtesy of the level of revelation he brought to the body of Christ.

That aside, there is nothing in the Book of Revelations that suggests that Matthias was a Godly replacement. It even lends credence to the reason we heard nothing of him afterwards. Jesus did not appoint his apostles by casting lots and the 11 who did erred. When it was time to appoint another apostle, we saw who Jesus himself appointed and it was Pau. That is exactly why Paul on a myriad of occasions was quick to point that his apostleship came from Jesus himself not by any man. That much is pretty clear.

Bringing this into the discourse, Apostle as the word Apostolos meaning sent ones is an office/ a calling and to that effect it was used rightly and not generically as you maybe aiming to imply. Ephesians tells us there are select Pastors, Prophets, Apostles, Teachers and Evangelists.

But when it comes to the issue of sainthood, it was not an office created by canonization. It was clearly and repeatedly used to refer to ALL members of the body of Christ. As a result, the OP is correct.

It's always good to consider what you're saying deeply before jumping to hold on to a preconceived notion. You claim to understand where I'm going, but still continue to beat about the bush. How can there be no difference between the apostleship of Paul and the apostleship of the twelve? In the book of revelations with regards to the apostles as I quoted Rev.21:14, twelve names were written and not thirteen.

The Scripture did not in any way condemn the way the apostles made the decision in Acts 1. Casting lots was a biblically allowed method of making a decision Proverbs 16:33The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. The same Peter who Ananias and Saphira lied to and were said to have lied to the Holy Spirit was the one who spoke and quoted scripture in the choosing of Matthias. Yet you dare suggest that he wasn't led by the Holy Spirit at the time of that decision. Where did Jesus choose Paul as an apostle? And, while Matthias is never again mentioned in the New Testament, the same can be said for most of the other 11 apostles.


Saint means holy one. It is used for God's people here on earth to indicate their aspiration to perfection, their willingness to live a holy life and a reflection of their state on receiving the merits of Christ sacrifice through baptism. It doesn't remove the fact that heaven is still the eternal abode of these earthly saints among whom some may fall. Those in heaven cannot fall, they are at the summit of holiness, Even scripture called heaven the place of the "just made perfect" Heb.12:23. Hence no one deserves the name Holy one/ Saint more than them. People on earth even acknowledge this in their speech as we've often hear people say " Am not a saint..."and they are very right.

Society and groups always have models, the scripture is filled with models for various virtues. The Church decides to portray some of her members as her models, that their lives may inspire her children still fighting the battle, but Lo, you have a problem with it, because she called them Holy Ones "Saints".

.

Syncan:



It's always good to consider what you're saying deeply before jumping to hold on to a preconceived notion. You claim to understand where I'm going, but still continue to beat about the bush. How can there be no difference between the apostleship of Paul and the apostleship of the twelve? In the book of revelations with regards to the apostles as I quoted Rev.21:14, twelve names were written and not thirteen.

The Scripture did not in any way condemn the way the apostles made the decision in Acts 1. Casting lots was a biblically allowed method of making a decision Proverbs 16:33The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. The same Peter who Ananias and Saphira lied to and were said to have lied to the Holy Spirit was the one who spoke and quoted scripture in the choosing of Matthias. Yet you dare suggest that he wasn't led by the Holy Spirit at the time of that decision. Where did Jesus choose Paul as an apostle? And, while Matthias is never again mentioned in the New Testament, the same can be said for most of the other 11 apostles.


Saint means holy one. It is used for God's people here on earth to indicate their aspiration to perfection, their willingness to live a holy life and a reflection of their state on receiving the merits of Christ sacrifice through baptism. It doesn't remove the fact that heaven is still the eternal abode of these earthly saints among whom some may fall. Those in heaven cannot fall, they are at the summit of holiness, Even scripture called heaven the place of the "just made perfect" Heb.12:23. Hence no one deserves the name Holy one/ Saint more than them. People on earth even acknowledge this in their speech as we've often hear people say " Am not a saint..."and they are very right.

Society and groups always have models, the scripture is filled with models for various virtues. The Church decides to portray some of her members as her models, that their lives may inspire her children still fighting the battle, but Lo, you have a problem with it, because she called them Holy Ones "Saints".

You are actually beating about the bush yourself as I maintained they were 12 names but suggested which name will be the twelfth. Any one who is Christian will know it is not Judas and if casting lots is your understanding of how the Holy Spirit acts, then you have a lot to learn.

For the sake of perspective, Matthias was elected before the Holy Spirit came. Jesus told them to wait but they did not. In Acts 2, after they received him, their decision making changed and lot casting was never done again. So it is pertinent to know what the time is spiritually.

Concerning Paul, We know Jesus appeared to him and told him he was going to send him ( a la Apostolos). We know that Paul barely learnt anything from the other apostles (he said so). We know even matters down to the communion Paul himself said he received his own revelation on the subject matter from Jesus himself. He also informed us that he had ALL the signs of an Apostle. So there is no question about Paul's apostle ship and if it differed from the other eleven prior.

Saint means Sanctified, separated, consecrated. Who does the sanctifying, consecration or separation? The bible says Jesus' blood did not is hoping to do. But DID. Also, there is no aspiration to perfection. Not a single human being can be perfect in any sense but the salvation wrought by Jesus which birthed Christianity has made that perfection a reality not a process. Mountains were called Holy, Cups, Bread etc and we all know why they got such appellation: because God called them so not for any aspiration or acts that they performed.

There is no summit of holiness or more deserving of it simply for the fact afore: it was given freely to everyone who believes in Jesus. John said "NOW are we already the sons of God" not when we go to Heaven but now. It is a present hour reality just like the free gift of righteousness. Thus, nobody in heaven is more righteous or holy than any Christian on earth.

For your information, you should read Hebrews 12 in context before yanking the "just men made perfect" part. The writer of the book was expounding on our now time sonship not relegating it to something futuristic. He clearly stated that WE ARE COME unto Mount Zion which is King James English for, we are now on Mount Zion. So the fables on specific people being saints and others aspiring to it is unscriptual no matter how well-meaning it appears.

You are blessed sir. With your write up, I know that the truth is in you.

Syncan:
I do wonder what joy you gain in deception.
How trying to look smart and not honest will help your life as a christian

Whoa, whoa, whoa, you kicked off on an ad hominien rampage
"Shey mo gba e jadu iyawo po ni?"
Attack the message, not the messenger.
Biko, leave the courier out of it.

Paul wasnt even among what I emboldened before wondering whether the aforementioned accept and agree with it.
Not even when everyone in the know, knows that the apostleship didnt shack Paul.
Paul didnt go on apostleship ego trips.
1 Corinthians 15:9 and 2 Corinthians 12:11 are a testament to this biblical fact and truth

Syncan:
I am glad you're not the only one God has blessed with a functional grey matter,
so those who read us can draw their inferences as well.
How those quotes exonerate you from what I wrote, I do not know

I merely showed how Paul came about the Apostleship
1/ an apostle--sent not from men nor by man
2/ an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope
3/ called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Syncan:
Very clearly I stated that St. Paul addressed himself as apostle, you started copying and pasting everywhere he did that, to support me or what?

Not to support you or what
but a mere exercise of presenting on their own merits factual biblical verses

Syncan:
If you do not understand my post, then I can't discuss with you

Seems, I didnt understand it.
Discussion to clarify and clear the air about it will be most welcome.

Syncan:
If you understood and simply want to deceive, then I don't have time to waste

I dont know about what and/or any deception you're talking about

Syncan:
Yes, you don't have beef with Paul calling himself an apostle when he isn't one of the twelve.
How you can explain this

"And remember, our Lord's patience gives people time to be saved.
This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him--"
- 2 Peter 3:15

"¹¹You have made me act like a fool--boasting like this.
You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these "super apostles," even though I am nothing at all.
¹²When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle.
For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you"
- 2 Corinthians 12:11-12

Peter, who is one of the twelve, in 2 Peter 3:15 above, gives Paul an endorsement, acceptance and approval.
I'll let 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 above, do the rest of explaning.

Syncan:
and can't understand the use of saint for members of the church in heaven ...

I dont want to fall out with you,
but recognise that it was wondered whether you agree to the emboldened before up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

It was just a simple and harmless curiosity remark

Syncan:
... only hatred can tell.

There is no iota of hatred.
Dont perceive me as a hater. All I've got for you is love Syncan
So Syncan no need for teeth baring, I love you. No homo.
Not saying "No homo", for fear of treated like a pariah, but just saying.
As you started your post with "Its no problem at all o...", that's good enough for me.

Maestro21:


You are actually beating about the bush yourself as I maintained they were 12 names but suggested which name will be the twelfth. Any one who is Christian will know it is not Judas and if casting lots is your understanding of how the Holy Spirit acts, then you have a lot to learn.

For the sake of perspective, Matthias was elected before the Holy Spirit came. Jesus told them to wait but they did not. In Acts 2, after they received him, their decision making changed and lot casting was never done again. So it is pertinent to know what the time is spiritually.

Concerning Paul, We know Jesus appeared to him and told him he was going to send him ( a la Apostolos). We know that Paul barely learnt anything from the other apostles (he said so). We know even matters down to the communion Paul himself said he received his own revelation on the subject matter from Jesus himself. He also informed us that he had ALL the signs of an Apostle. So there is no question about Paul's apostle ship and if it differed from the other eleven prior.

Saint means Sanctified, separated, consecrated. Who does the sanctifying, consecration or separation? The bible says Jesus' blood did not is hoping to do. But DID. Also, there is no aspiration to perfection. Not a single human being can be perfect in any sense but the salvation wrought by Jesus which birthed Christianity has made that perfection a reality not a process. Mountains were called Holy, Cups, Bread etc and we all know why they got such appellation: because God called them so not for any aspiration or acts that they performed.

There is no summit of holiness or more deserving of it simply for the fact afore: it was given freely to everyone who believes in Jesus. John said "NOW are we already the sons of God" not when we go to Heaven but now. It is a present hour reality just like the free gift of righteousness. Thus, nobody in heaven is more righteous or holy than any Christian on earth.

For your information, you should read Hebrews 12 in context before yanking the "just men made perfect" part. The writer of the book was expounding on our now time sonship not relegating it to something futuristic. He clearly stated that WE ARE COME unto Mount Zion which is King James English for, we are now on Mount Zion. So the fables on specific people being saints and others aspiring to it is unscriptual no matter how well-meaning it appears.

You have to make up your mind whether to accept scripture or not. Acts 1:26 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place". Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. This clearly states that Matthias was added to the eleven. The next passage was the Pentecost, and there was no where in scripture where the Holy Spirit rejected Matthias. Oh, I have a lot to learn because I quoted proverbs 16:33 to you "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" . What else can I say but to refer you to Lev.16:8.

Casting of lot is not something you do often, that the scripture didn't record them casting lot afterwards never invalidated the one they did earlier. There was nothing that Suggested they had to wait till after Pentecost for another to take the seat of Judas, nothing at all. It is indeed very significant that the apostles be twelve at the birth of the Church, hence the eleven's decision to replace Judas before Pentecost was inspired. Neither was there a change of mind in their decision after Pentecost. If God didn't choose Matthias, He would have rejected him, but he didn't. Even after the descend of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:14, Peter Stood with the eleven which included Matthias. With apostle being an office of the twelve, Paul no where fell into this category, neither does he qualify for it based on the criteria laid down in Acts.1 by those whom Christ have earlier told that what they bound is considered bound.

Paul called himself an apostle, not as one of the twelve, but as one set apart for the work of preaching the gospel. He spoke of himself as an apostle, in the same way Luke called Paul and Barnabas apostles, they were both requested by the Holy Spirit to be set apart for the missions. Hence we see the use of apostle not as an office (for the twelve), but also as a term for a chosen person set apart for the preaching of the gospel.

The rest write up above really doesn't say anything to disparage the use of the word Saints for members of the Church in heaven, you make bold to say that "Thus, nobody in heaven is more righteous or holy than any Christian on earth". That's the point were - having known what scripture says about the righteous man on earth - I simply see am wasting my time with you.

MuttleyLaff:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you kicked off on an ad hominien rampage
"Shey mo gba e jadu iyawo po ni?"
Attack the message, not the messenger.
Biko, leave the courier out of it.

Paul wasnt even among what I emboldened before wondering whether the aforementioned accept and agree with it.
Not even when everyone in the know, knows that the apostleship didnt shack Paul.
Paul didnt go on apostleship ego trips.
1 Corinthians 15:9 and 2 Corinthians 12:11 are a testament to this biblical fact and truth

I merely showed how Paul came about the Apostleship
1/ an apostle--sent not from men nor by man
2/ an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope
3/ called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Not to support you or what
but a mere exercise of presenting on their own merits factual biblical verses

Seems, I didnt understand it.
Discussion to clarify and clear the air about it will be most welcome.

I dont know about what and/or any deception you're talking about

"And remember, our Lord's patience gives people time to be saved.
This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him--"
- 2 Peter 3:15

"¹¹You have made me act like a fool--boasting like this.
You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these "super apostles," even though I am nothing at all.
¹²When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle.
For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you"
- 2 Corinthians 12:11-12

Peter, who is one of the twelve, in 2 Peter 3:15 above, gives Paul an endorsement, acceptance and approval.
I'll let 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 above, do the rest of explaning.

I dont want to fall out with you,
but recognise that it was wondered whether you agree to the emboldened before up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

It was just a simple and harmless curiosity remark

There is no iota of hatred.
Dont perceive me as a hater. All I've got for you is love Syncan
So Syncan no need for teeth baring, I love you. No homo.
Not saying "No homo", for fear of treated like a pariah, but just saying.
As you started your post with "Its no problem at all o...", that's good enough for me.

MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time. You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things. I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine, as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in. Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words... Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized, no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven. The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

Syncan:


MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time. You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things. I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine, as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in. Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words... Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized, no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven. The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

Amen

Syncan:
MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time.
You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things.
I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine,
as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in.
Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words...
Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven.
The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

I wish you same too

Ubenedictus:
Amen

Syncan, as I earlier mentioned, I dont want and never set to fall out with you.

I dont have the time too, I, when necessary, just free time to post.

Responding to posts section by section, remark by remark, statement by statement is an acquired skill
How else to counter?

Canon of scripture is not the same thing as canonisation of saints
Canon of scripture is a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine and are distinct from falsely attributed works

Why the canonisation of saints then?
Is it an exercise done or necessary to recognise the gennine from the false?
If its accepted and agreed that, they are already saints in heaven, why then, is it necessary to declare them saints?

Syncan:
MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time.
You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things.
I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine,
as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in.
Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words...
Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven.
The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

I wish you same too

Ubenedictus:
Amen

Syncan, as I earlier mentioned, I dont want and never set to fall out with you.

I dont have the time too, but I when necessary, just free time to post.

Responding to posts section by section, remark by remark, statement by statement is an acquired skill
How else to counter?

Canon of scripture is not the same thing as canonisation of saints
Canon of scripture is a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine and are distinct from falsely attributed works

Why the canonisation of saints then?
Is it an exercise done or necessary to recognise the gennine from the false?
If its accepted and agreed that, they are already saints in heaven, why then, is it necessary to declare them saints?

Syncan:


You have to make up your mind whether to accept scripture or not. Acts 1:26 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place". Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. This clearly states that Matthias was added to the eleven. The next passage was the Pentecost, and there was no where in scripture where the Holy Spirit rejected Matthias. Oh, I have a lot to learn because I quoted proverbs 16:33 to you "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" . What else can I say but to refer you to Lev.16:8.

Casting of lot is not something you do often, that the scripture didn't record them casting lot afterwards never invalidated the one they did earlier. There was nothing that Suggested they had to wait till after Pentecost for another to take the seat of Judas, nothing at all. It is indeed very significant that the apostles be twelve at the birth of the Church, hence the eleven's decision to replace Judas before Pentecost was inspired. Neither was there a change of mind in their decision after Pentecost. If God didn't choose Matthias, He would have rejected him, but he didn't. Even after the descend of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:14, Peter Stood with the eleven which included Matthias. With apostle being an office of the twelve, Paul no where fell into this category, neither does he qualify for it based on the criteria laid down in Acts.1 by those whom Christ have earlier told that what they bound is considered bound.

Paul called himself an apostle, not as one of the twelve, but as one set apart for the work of preaching the gospel. He spoke of himself as an apostle, in the same way, Luke called Paul and Barnabas apostles, they were both requested by the Holy Spirit to be set apart for the missions. Hence we see the use of apostle not as an office (for the twelve), but also as a term for a chosen person set apart for the preaching of the gospel.

The rest write up above really doesn't say anything to disparage the use of the word Saints for members of the Church in heaven, you make bold to say that "Thus, nobody in heaven is more righteous or holy than any Christian on earth". That's the point were - having known what scripture says about the righteous man on earth - I simply see am wasting my time with you.

I don't know if it is indoctrination or if you are just reading your thoughts into the very same scripture you posted. People prayed to God, heard no word and decided to cast lots. That is the very sequence you have above. You cannot claim that decision came from God anymore than the one involving the soldiers who cast lots for Jesus' clothes. That is why I keep telling you to understand spiritual timing. That something was allowed pre-Holy spirit does not mean same thing continued post him.

Your argument on the silence of rejecting Matthias is non-sequitur. Matthias was a Christian who probably died a martyr but he simply was not Gods choice as that apostle. To peer Barnabas and Paul to save your dead argument is also shallow. Are we referring to a Paul whom " Pope" Peter said his teachings were scripture and esoteric to comprehend? With a bulk of the NT teachings or another Paul?

And you said Paul called himself an Apostle not as one of the twelve but that is simply because Paul was not into the early church politics of ranks and titles. He had already said he learnt nothing from any of them and when it appeared other Christian folks tried to make his appointment as one of a junior rank owing to being sent to non-jews he magnified his OFFICE (Romans 11:13). Or should we extend your logic and argue that John who saw the Revelations saw 12 names and not 11 other names since he did not expressly state it as such or he too was not part of the 12?

And nobody was set to disparage the use of saints for children of God both in heaven and on earth as you know it is one family. But the ones in heaven do not have any special meaning to the name. The whole body of christ are all one and the same saint. Humans will not segregate or discriminate where the word of God has not done and if such reasoning is wasting your time, it speaks a lot about you.

Maestro21:


I don't know if it is indoctrination or if you are just reading your thoughts into the very same scripture you posted. People prayed to God, heard no word and decided to cast lots. That is the very sequence you have above. You cannot claim that decision came from God anymore than the one involving the soldiers who cast lots for Jesus' clothes. That is why I keep telling you to understand spiritual timing. That something was allowed pre-Holy spirit does not mean same thing continued post him.

Your argument on the silence of rejecting Matthias is non-sequitur. Matthias was a Christian who probably died a martyr but he simply was not Gods choice as that apostle. To peer Barnabas and Paul to save your dead argument is also shallow. Are we referring to a Paul whom " Pope" Peter said his teachings were scripture and esoteric to comprehend? With a bulk of the NT teachings or another Paul?

And you said Paul called himself an Apostle not as one of the twelve but that is simply because Paul was not into the early church politics of ranks and titles. He had already said he learnt nothing from any of them and when it appeared other Christian folks tried to make his appointment as one of a junior rank owing to being sent to non-jews he magnified his OFFICE (Romans 11:13). Or should we extend your logic and argue that John who saw the Revelations saw 12 names and not 11 other names since he did not expressly state it as such or he too was not part of the 12?

And nobody was set to disparage the use of saints for children of God both in heaven and on earth as you know it is one family. But the ones in heaven do not have any special meaning to the name. The whole body of christ are all one and the same saint. Humans will not segregate or discriminate where the word of God has not done and if such reasoning is wasting your time, it speaks a lot about you.

You're really a time waster.

Syncan:



You're really a time waster.

I get it. No more Google links to check.

MuttleyLaff:
I wish you same too

Syncan, as I earlier mentioned, I dont want and never set to fall out with you.

I dont have the time too, but I when necessary, just free time to post.

Responding to posts section by section, remark by remark, statement by statement is an acquired skill
How else to counter?

Canon of scripture is not the same thing as canonisation of saints
Canon of scripture is a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine and are distinct from falsely attributed works

Why the canonisation of saints then?
Is it an exercise done or necessary to recognise the gennine from the false?
If its accepted and agreed that, they are already saints in heaven, why then, is it necessary to declare them saints?

Thanks for your understanding MuttleyLaff.

What you're playing with is basically semantics, which isn't necessary. The inspired books were canonized by listing them in the Canon of scripture, while the saints you talk about were Canonized by listing them in the Canon of Saints. This is simply to demystify canonization and what it means.

Why it is necessary to declare them saints is among other things, a provision of role models for the living. Nothing like knowing that someone faced with same conditions of your age/generation, still lived a holy life. It is true we face different challenges and temptations than the people of the scriptures, so it's good to have examples of those who lived in these times and lived holy lives. We had saints who died as youths, their lives serves as role model of Christlike living for youths who find themselves in certain situations those saints found themselves. We have the religious, we have the lay, we have people from various modern professions. St Paul in 1Cor 4:16 told the People "therefore I urge you to Imitate me...". People often learn from the lives of the Heroes/models of their society, the church has her's dear friend.

MuttleyLaff:
I wish you same too

Syncan, as I earlier mentioned, I dont want and never set to fall out with you.

I dont have the time too, but I when necessary, just free time to post.

Responding to posts section by section, remark by remark, statement by statement is an acquired skill
How else to counter?

Canon of scripture is not the same thing as canonisation of saints
Canon of scripture is a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine and are distinct from falsely attributed works

Why the canonisation of saints then?
Is it an exercise done or necessary to recognise the gennine from the false?
If its accepted and agreed that, they are already saints in heaven, why then, is it necessary to declare them saints?

actually in the early Church the canon simply meant the standard accepted in Church liturgy, so if you are looking for where the Church canonized scriptures you'll simply find the documents where the Church says so and so books are to be read in the liturgy, in the Russian Orthodox Church the book of revelation is not canonical, it doesn't mean it isn't inspired, it means it is not read during liturgy.

when a saint is canonised it means the Church has a day or days in the liturgy where she remembers the persons faith and considers the outcome of their life just as some days ago was the canon for the apostle st Thomas.
persons of exceptional and heroic faith are considered daily and all saints whether in the canon or not are remembered in November....

so this is correct

Those members of the church you talk about; are
not saints in heaven because the were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are saints in
heaven.
The books of the bible did not become inspired
because they were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired .

Saint through Christ by faith.

MuttleyLaff:
Teach brother.
I wonder, whether or not, self-professed catholics,
the likes of Ubenedictus, 9inches, Syncan, italo etcetera agree to the emboldened up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

As we have worn the likeness of the man who was made from the dust of the earth,
we will also wear the likeness of the man who came from heaven.
- 1 Corinthians 15:49

The biblical meaning of saints means "Set apart"
and implies, a set of people, different and/or distinct, as in, due to, having a likeness of nature with God
and so, set apart from others because of the fact of being special to God

Saints, have swapped the likeness of nature with Adam, for a likeness of nature with God
1 Corinthians 15:49 above, is a future entitlement

I hope you have been clarified

bloodofthelamb:


A saint is someone who believe in Jesus Christ. God is the One responsible for his sainthood.

Of a truth, all Christians are saints. But not all believers are Christians.
Not everyone who believes Jesus is Lord is a Christian/saint. One who believes is only just Born again. But must undergo Discipleship to carry the Cross of Christ. That is one who is now yoked to Christ. This learning of Christ by the Holyspirit could take up to 3 years to complete the transformation into a Christian or Saint. At this stage you become like Christ in Nature, Power and Autority. Provided you have completely yoked yourself to Christ.

It may sound difficult or even impossible to the flesh. But remember, with Christ, all things are possible.

May the Holyspirit give us more understanding in Jesus name. Amen.