Why EVERY True Bible Believer is a Saint, What does the Bible Say?

Middletown Bible Church ^ | 10/10/03 | Middletown Bible Church

[RaceBannon]

This previous page is a section of a Bible Study on Salvation, and contains a great Biblical Truth concerning just who is a Saint in the light of God's Word, and how one becomes a Saint.

[RaceBannon]

For those who missed it, start with fact#2

[Conservative til I die]

My goodness, is this what Bible-only fundamentalist Christianity has come to?? Quizzes and exams on who said what to whom when and where?

[dangus]

The principle objection I have with this is that it differentiates "believers" and "nonbelievers" in such a way as to create an absolute binary system; and one is either "saved" or "Not saved."

While this is the ultimate conditiopn at the end of time, it is not our current condition. A "saint" is fully "sanctified." A fully sanctified person does not sin. Christians do sin, even after becoming Christian. This was less so among the disciples who had fantastically strong faith as a result of witnessing the resurrection. But even they did sin by insisting on circumcision when they knew better.

Those who witnessed the miracles of the disciples did sin, too... The epistles are full of rebukes for their sinfulness, and yet the epistles count their readers among the "saved." When we become Christian, God doesn't merely forgive our *past* sins, through Jesus, he promises to continue to forgive our sins. With every decision to follow him, with every sinful impulse we reject, with every experience that we learn to love from, and with every suffering we accept in His name, we are further sanctified.

Those who complete this journey while alive are called "Saints." Whether through the process of death, or at the moment of death (as many mainstream Protestants believe) or after death (as in the Catholic belief of purgatory), many more acheieve sanctity.

[dangus]

O be fair... this isn't an exam... it's a "led exploration." Although it is led with a very, very short chain. The person is directed exactly to the verses which make the author's point, and is then supposed to feel like he "found" the answers. It's a pedagogical tactic which feels more "open" then simply directly stating the "answers." It tends to be fairly effective with people who have:
1. Placed their trust in the bible, but
2. Have become wary of people who merely quote scrcipture,
3. Know very little of the bible, and
4. Have had very little education since their childhood, or have come to distrust the education they have received.

[RaceBannon]

Well, it aint a test, but a Bible Study!

It makes you look up the answer so you learn what the Bible actually says on something.

Try it! Takes a while, but you will certainly learn something.

[RaceBannon]

You left out something:

If you actually do the study, you would see what was actually taught, and what you read and came to a conclusion of, would be from the Bible, and the Bible alone, backed up by the Bible alone.

[RaceBannon]

Umm, you make a great error.

Go back up and do the section titled FACT #2

[nmh]

Race these folks don't bother to read the Bible so they wouldn't know and don't want to know what's in it.

[knarf]

" ... and one is either "saved" or "Not saved."

That is what scripture teaches.

The goal God has for all of mankind is to be saved .. John 3:16 ... whosoever should not perish but have everlasting life .. and .. 1 Peter 3:9 ... all should come to repentence.

It's not difficult, when we try to have the mind of Christ, that things are black and white, at least in intent.

[dangus]

>>>>" ... and one is either "saved" or "Not saved."

>>That is what scripture teaches.

You took me out of context! This is what I said:

>>>>While this is the ultimate condition at the end of time, it is not our current condition.

Next time read the whole passage before you go on the attack.

[dangus]

Would you care to state explicitly what my error was instead of playing games?

[dangus]

>>You left out something:

>>If you actually do the study, you would see what was actually taught, and what you read and came to a conclusion of, would be from the Bible, and the Bible alone, backed up by the Bible alone.

O My Gosh! Biblically-based teachings! How novel! Why, Gee, I never saw somebody quote the scripture in a bible study before!!!

</sarcasm>

Yeah, precisely... you get a preliminary sentence to make you think in terms of an issue, then you read a selected passage. Naturally, you come to a given conclusion which was suggested by the passage.

Suppose I were to say:

What is it which causes one to be saved? James 2:14-17 says it is: __________________________________

The person who did that excercise would have a 100% biblical answer that would not exactly lead him to the protestant doctrine of sola fidelis.

[knarf]

"While this is the ultimate condition at the end of time, it is not our current condition."

I did read your entire reply ... I'm saved now and later on is only the continuation of my salvation.

[RaceBannon]

"The person who did that excercise would have a 100% biblical answer that would not exactly lead him to the protestant doctrine of sola fidelis. "

Since this passage has nothing to do with Salvation, you would be correct. It has to do with showing fruit of Salvation, not how to get salvation.




(James 2:14 KJV) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

(James 2:15 KJV) If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

(James 2:16 KJV) And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

(James 2:17 KJV) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

[RaceBannon]

I am not playing games, that was a rude comment.

While this is the ultimate conditiopn at the end of time, it is not our current condition. A "saint" is fully "sanctified." A fully sanctified person does not sin. Christians do sin, even after becoming Christian.

Here is your first error.

The Bible clearly states that all, true believers are SAINTS, even those who are in sin. Sainthood is a state of the believer on Earth and Heaven, while sinlessness is only a state of justification concerning Salvation while on Earth; those being in Christ being seen as sinless. A believer can still sin and ruin their fellowship with God in this flesh, hence;

(1 John 2:1 KJV) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
(1 John 2:2 KJV) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(1 John 2:3 KJV) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
(1 John 2:4 KJV) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
(1 John 2:5 KJV) But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
(1 John 2:6 KJV) He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Those who witnessed the miracles of the disciples did sin, too... The epistles are full of rebukes for their sinfulness, and yet the epistles count their readers among the "saved." When we become Christian, God doesn't merely forgive our *past* sins, through Jesus, he promises to continue to forgive our sins. With every decision to follow him, with every sinful impulse we reject, with every experience that we learn to love from, and with every suffering we accept in His name, we are further sanctified.

You cannot be further sanctified more than a person is when they get saved. Either they have received the full forgiveness of sin from Christ, or they didnt get it at all. That is another error.

Your comments on believers in the NT still sinning, that is only proving my point. If they still sinned, and were called Saints in the Bible, then Saints can still sin on this Earth.

Those who complete this journey while alive are called "Saints." Whether through the process of death, or at the moment of death (as many mainstream Protestants believe) or after death (as in the Catholic belief of purgatory), many more acheieve sanctity.

Wroong. Either the death of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins, and God saw us as sinless completely through the shed blood of Christ on the cross, or Jesus died in vain.

There is not one thing you can do to increase your sanctification in God's eye except believe on the one He has sent.

Those are a few of your errors. I suggest you do the study, it will be a blessing for you if you actually want to larn about it.

[RaceBannon]

if this is a led exploration, then do it, and use Scripture to show where the errors are

[dangus]

"The Bible clearly states that all, true believers are SAINTS,"

I agree with this, but as I said, there are many who believe, but whose faith is immature and weak.

"Sainthood is a state of the believer on Earth and Heaven, while sinlessness is only a state of justification concerning Salvation while on Earth; those being in Christ being seen as sinless."

You are conflating sanctification with justification. They do have distinct meanings.

" You cannot be further sanctified more than a person is when they get saved. Either they have received the full forgiveness of sin from Christ, or they didnt get it at all. That is another error. "

Says you... This is another false binarism.

" Your comments on believers in the NT still sinning, that is only proving my point. If they still sinned, and were called Saints in the Bible, then Saints can still sin on this Earth."

Actually, I see no-where in the bible (using the NT concept of saints) where the saints were still sinning when they are called saints.

"Wroong. Either the death of Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins, and God saw us as sinless completely through the shed blood of Christ on the cross, or Jesus died in vain."

No, the apostles all died. They all suffered. It is because of sin that they died, since suffering and death are a consequence of original sin. The eternal consequence of sin, destruction, is lifted, but we still all summer the temporal consequence of original sin: concupiscence, our present sufferings and our temporal death.

If I kill my wife, and find Christ, I can be saved. I will have eternal life. Thus, the eternal consequence of my sins are remitted. I am still without my wife, and will likely go to prison. The temporal consequences of my actions remain. Many mainstream protestants hold that the temporal consequences of my sin are over by the instant after I die. But there are still consequences. That does not mean Christ died in vain.

>> Those are a few of your errors. I suggest you do the study, it will be a blessing for you if you actually want to larn about it.

1. I did the study before I commented on it.
2. The single most irritating trait which I find so common among certain types of Protestants is the presumption that anyone who disagrees with them is simply ignorant of the most basic beliefs.

[dangus]

>>if this is a led exploration, then do it, and use Scripture to show where the errors are

If you read what I was responding to, you will see that what I offered was a (reasonably unappreciated) defense. In post #5, I pointed out the pedagogical techniques of the teaching without asserting that any part of it was incorrect. There is not a scriptural teaching to point out the limitations of a very modern instructive technique.

However, the technique does use isolated chunks of scripture arranged in the author's structure. While I malign these authors specifically, this technique is very open to abuse; the devil himself quotes scripture as the basis for his arguments.

[dangus]

>>Since this passage has nothing to do with Salvation,

This passage has nothing to do with salvation? Outrageous! The very topic is salvation! James asks, "Can his faith save him?" And his answer: No, if faith is not accompanied by works, it is dead. That is, it has no life within it. "Even so, faith, if it has not works, being alone, is dead."

How can this be? One has to look beyond that context to realize that if one's faith is *correct,* works will follow faith. (If I have faith that Woody Allen is God, works will not follow.)

Don't feel bad. The book of James threw Martin Luther so badly that he declared it non-canonical, and had it stripped out of his bible. (I bet that scene isn't in the movie!)