Question for Evangelicals/protestants

We can thank English’s large inheritance from both Germanic (holy) and Romance languages (saintly) for this.

Really? What you have come up with is not what the Bible says.

So why then? Because we do it, and therefore it is to be avoided. Because we have Saints, and they eschew the very concept. At least, that’s how it probably started.

I did a search in the KJV for “be holy” and took out the relatively few instances where “be holy” referred to objects, etc. Once, in the book of Joel, it is used in reference to Jerusalem.

In the OT:

For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy.

  • Lev 11:44

In the OT, the phrase “be holy” referring specifically to persons occurs 3 times in Book of Exodus, 7 other times (besides the one above) in the Book of Leviticus, and 2 times in the Book of Numbers.

In the NT:

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

  • 1 Peter 1:15-16

The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

  • 1 Cor 7:34

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love

  • Eph 1:4

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

  • Rev 22:11

Also, Jesus tells us, or rather, commands us:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

  • Matt 5:48

Jesus is calling us to be as perfect as God! It should go without saying that it is God who enables us, with our cooperation, to become holy. That is why the Holy Spirit is called “The Sanctifier”. As God is perfectly holy, so are we called to strive to be perfectly holy! Of course, none of us can actually become ‘perfectly’ holy, but that isn’t to say that people don’t have the obligation to actually become holy in their lives. If they don’t, they aren’t obeying Jesus:

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? [He said to “be perfect”]

  • Luke 6:46

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words “be perfect”]: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

  • John 14:23-24

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. [that is to say, you who are NOT holy, and who did not cooperate with the graces I gave you to “be perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”]

  • Matt 7:22-23

As to who can enter heaven, the Bible has this to say:

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

  • Rev 21:27

How many times does St. Paul refer to the “saints” in his letters? Many. I’m too lazy to find the exact number right now, but that is unimportant because we all know that he does. A “saint” is, by definition, someone who is holy.

What happened to Sola Scriptura? P’s should try actually going by it and not just saying they do and coming up with all sorts of unbiblical beliefs and errors. Please, put the Bible first and leave behind once and for all all the unbiblical beliefs (like the one in question, that there is no such thing as a “saint” and we shouldn’t strive for or call people “holy”) that have come directly or indirectly from the anti-“Papist”, inflammatory, vehemently anti-Catholic rhetoric, distortions, and lies from Luther and the gang, for the last 500 years. And among many Protestants, that nonsense is still going strong, even after half a millenium. Once again, we see the True Church of Jesus Christ, the one who is faithful to the Bible and Her Lord’s words.

:crossrc:

God bless

Holy cow, dcana. Where did anyone say “there is no such thing as a saint and we shouldn’t strive for or call people ‘holy’”? Did you the the whole of this short thread, with more fleshed out answers?

Huh, I guess Robin must have been Catholic, with the way he prefaced his exclamations to Batman.:shrug:

If any man saith that Robin is Lutheran, Calvinist, or belongs to any of the other sects of they who are termed Protestant, let him be anathema. - Fourth Gotham Council. That’s seems pretty clear to me.

Holy obscure councils, Batman!

I heard another evangelicalism, to “grace the food”… which I assume means ‘person A is going to say Grace for God to bless and sanctify the meal’ … not that person A has some sort of divine ability to thunderbolt graces of their own onto fruit, veggies, bread and meats.

Verbing weirds language.

Language is a fluid, changing “creature” - having been in education I watched as a word changed from sweatshirt to hoodie and, in the city where I taught last, lastly “sweater.” I find it’s amazing how people can come up with new and (crazy to me) phrases and names for items who has perfectly good names in the first place. It does make life certainly interesting as we try to keep up with the changes in our lifetime!

God bless, all!

Rita

So as not to be too esoteric, that’s from a Calvin and Hobbes.

I was just thinking in Spanish/Italian/Latin we have Santo/Sanctus and both mean holy/saint. The English language is definitely a funny one.

Quite a tangent I got there for simply saying, “Perhaps these are the reasons that you have observed this.” haha.

Nobody likes a showoff. :tsktsk:

dcana. Where did anyone say “there is no such thing as a saint and we shouldn’t strive for or call people ‘holy’”? Did you the the whole of this short thread, with more fleshed out answers?

Sorry for the delay. To answer your question, dronald did. Here are two of his quotes:

“I think Holy is left out because we believe that God is holy and don’t want that as an attribute to a living human being, as we’re not holy by definition. Although, some of our works could be considered holy I suppose?

“I think that godly is used because Christians want to emulate Christ as closely as possible. I think when someone says someone is godly they are speaking of the works of the person, and not the person themselves. Evangelicals are usually pretty afraid at offending God by making anything or anyone else out to be a ‘god’ in any way. It makes us all uncomfortable. So I think saying a person is ‘godly’ is saying that their works emulate that of Christ. Christ is God, therefore feeding the poor is a ‘godly’ thing to do.”

That is where someone said “there is no such thing as a saint and we shouldn’t strive for or call people ‘holy’”. Am I not correct in my assertion?

How can one be united with the All-Holy God in the Beatific Vision unless we ourselves become perfectly holy? Sin and God do not mix. That means that every vestige of sin and selfishness must be removed from us. For most of us, this happens in Purgatory, and it’s a painful thing to let go of these things, but that is precisely what Purgatory is for.

But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

  • 1 Peter 1:15

To take an extract from his quote above:
“Evangelicals are usually pretty afraid at offending God by making anything or anyone else out to be a ‘god’ in any way. It makes us all uncomfortable.”

Calling someone “holy” is not making them out to be a “god”. That’s preposterous. The Scriptures:

  1. Command us to be holy
  2. Forbid idolatry

Therefore, to be holy is not to become a “god” - which, if it were possible (of course, it isn’t), would demand worship - it is to become “like God” who is holy. Otherwise, Scripture would contradict itself.

Is God Love? Yes, and we are called to be loving. Actually loving, not evil but “doing works of love”, as if such a thing were possible. Sure, one can do “works of love” (e.g. volunteer at a soup kitchen) but if you have not love, it counts as nothing. One must possess love and have the intention of doing the act by that very love for an act to truly be an “act of love”.

Is God good? Yes, and we are called to be good. To actually become good, not evil but “doing works of goodness”, which is not actually possible, as above.

Is God perfect? Yes, and He calls us to be perfect: “Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Was Jesus not perfect? Yes, of course. But what does that mean? Does it not mean that “He was like us in all things, but did not sin?” He always did the will of the Father. So, in His humanity, He was actually holy. Of course, in His Divinity, He is the All-Holy God.

Is God holy? Yes, and we are called to be holy. To actually become holy, not evil but “doing works of holiness”, [size=2]which is not actually possible, as above.

If one is evil, i.e. a sinner with the guilt of mortal sin remaining on his soul, but for whatever reason is doing “works of goodness”, and then dies in that state, to Hell he shall go, because he is wicked. Actually wicked, as opposed to actually holy.

The Holy Spirit is called the “Sanctifier” because He sanctifies us, that is, He makes us holy, makes us saints.

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints… [notice **to be[/size] saints, not “to do saintly works”]

  • Romans 1:7

I think this profoundly unbiblical thinking (unbiblical in my opinion) stems from Martin Luther’s idea of justification. How when we are justified, we are not actually justified, but remain a “pile of dung” with Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Catholics believe that when we are justified, we become justified, not “declared to be so”, by the action of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.

God bless

The OP made an observation, and I too speculated why perhaps the OP has observed this.

I’m sorry, I’ve got to run. So you mean that when you said:

“I think Holy is left out because we believe that God is holy and don’t want that as an attribute to a living human being, as we’re not holy by definition. Although, some of our works could be considered holy I suppose?

“I think that godly is used because Christians want to emulate Christ as closely as possible. I think when someone says someone is godly they are speaking of the works of the person, and not the person themselves. Evangelicals are usually pretty afraid at offending God by making anything or anyone else out to be a ‘god’ in any way. It makes us all uncomfortable. So I think saying a person is ‘godly’ is saying that their works emulate that of Christ. Christ is God, therefore feeding the poor is a ‘godly’ thing to do.”

you don’t consider yourselves part of the “we”? “We” means “I and others”.

So, I’ll ask the simple question. Do you believe that people actually become holy, and therefore it’s perfectly appropriate and logical to call them holy, since they are holy, or not?

Be back in a bit.

Well no, I don’t consider myself Holy. I don’t know if I can make a judgement call in who else is Holy. I know that God is, and all who have been sanctified are; but it’s hard to say for sure if someone else ‘is’ Holy.

Do you consider yourself by definition “Holy”? I strive to be, but again I cannot say I am. I am a sinner and I am in desperate need of my God.

Dcana—I do think, for one, you are misunderstanding Dronald’s words. I agree with him that the vast majority of the time we are not yet holy through and through— purely, unadulteratedly holy, as God is holy-- though we are to strive to be perfected into His image. Rather than seeing this an influence specifically of Luther, I think it has, among Evangelicals, more to do with a reverence for how exalted God’s holy state is, compared to our mixed and muddled condition, where even our best moments often are composed of love and selfishness woven together.

Secondly, you definitely are over-estimating Luther’s influence. Did you read the rest of the thread? I am also, like another poster said he originally was, from a Methodist Holiness Movement church. The influence I grew up with was that we can be infused, to greater and lesser degrees, with God’s righteousness, and indeed are ultimately to grow to perfection (not a perfection of not making mistakes, but of growing into “meeting our end” or becoming “thoroughly made” as a creation/work/poema of God). Yet, I am still sparing of using the word “holy” of a person. I know what it means, and I’ll use it when I mean it.

Dcana, I’m not sure if your church ever sings the Reginald Heber hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy”, but it’s still used by Evangelicals. From one of the verses:

Holy, holy, holy, though the darkness hide Thee,
Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see.
Only Thou art holy; there is none beside Thee
Perfect in power, in love and purity.

I consider everyone who is validly baptized “holy”, because of the Holy Spirit who dwells within them and makes them holy. Are not all who are “saved” at the point of death holy? Mustn’t they be to enter heaven, since “nothing unholy shall enter it?”

To the best of my knowledge, I am in a state of Sanctifying Grace, and therefore holy, right now (which, for me, is not all of the time, btw), though I am decidedly not very holy. God has given us the means to restore that gift to us in Holy Confession if we -]lose/-] discard that gift through the commission of serious sin. Hallelujah! Such mercy!

If we are unrighteous before baptism (and we are) - a “pile of dung”, if you will - what are we after baptism, after having been “justified by faith”, a “pile of dung” still, which is decidedly not holy at all? That makes no sense.

If you are not holy right now, what do you think would happen to you if you were to die right now? The Bible says that nothing “impure” (or “evil”, “unclean”, or “defiled” by various translations) shall enter into heaven. How do you expect to see God “unveiled”, “face-to-face”, “as He is” and to be perfectly united to Him in the Beatific Vision if you are unholy? You couldn’t be. It would be an impossibility. One is either dead in sin or “alive for God in Christ Jesus.” There is no middle ground; your soul is either dead (without Sanctifying Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Life of God present within it) or “alive for God in Christ Jesus” (with Sanctifying Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Life of God present within it). Sanctifying Grace is the gift of God’s very life to us that does what it says - it makes us holy and thereby able to see God. This life of God grows within us as we go from “glory to glory” through life if we accept this gift from God and do His will. So we grow in holiness as we more and more turn away from sin, by God’s grace. We are not perfectly holy (probably), because we still sin and have the stain of sin on our souls. But in heaven we will be perfectly holy. Again, that’s what God’s merciful gift of Purgatory is for.

Consider this:
[11] For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
[12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw –
[13] each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] **If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. **

  • 1 Cor 3

Then Paul says, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are.”

Here Paul says that we are God’s holy temple. Why would God be angry and “destroy us” if we were to “destroy” ourselves and we are nothing but a “pile of dung”? He wouldn’t. That’s silly. The problem is, that’s not true. We’re not a “pile of dung”, we’re “God’s holy temple”. And how do we “destroy God’s holy temple” anyway? Well, I guess you could say by taking our own life, but it seems to me that that would be an extremely narrow interpretation. We do it by committing any mortal sin, not just that particular one.

Paul also says, “I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

Do we offer up “piles of dung” to the Living, All-Holy God? Does the Holy Spirit take up residence in a “pile of dung” or does He transform that “pile of dung” into something holy by His Presence? I would submit that He does the latter. That’s what the Bible teaches. How very inappropriate and “unacceptable” to God to offer up “piles of dung”. No, Paul specifically says our very bodies must be holy. We offer something holy to the All-Holy God.

God bless

I honestly don’t see how. He seemed to be pretty clear to me:

“I think Holy is left out because we believe that God is holy and don’t want that as an attribute to a living human being, as we’re not holy by definition. Although, some of our works could be considered holy I suppose?”

See above.

See above. And this:

“Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Jesus doesn’t say, be “thoroughly made into a poem of God.”

He says to be perfect. Period.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.