Originally posted by Conrau KDidn't I? I used the words: "Can you explain it to me in laymen's terms?" This is a question, isn't it?
You didn't ask. You frankly made a provocative remark that Catholicism uses saints in a way comparable to Hindu gods. It's these sorts of comments I expect from Galvo or Robbie.
Originally posted by FabianFnasOne of the hardest things for the ego to do,theists and athiests alike, and that is: treat everyone as equal,ie. having equal worth.
Thank you karoly. I really do.
There are sesveral different approaches to a question like this:
(1) Taking the question as an insult. "I'm better than those hethens, How dare you compare me to those!"
(2) Taking the question as a wakness. "I know something you don't, meaning I'm better than you."
(3) Taking the question as an entrance of missionary ...[text shortened]... clear way what I don't understand, thus giving them a chance to formulate the answer.
i know christians think Jesus is superior to all other humans, but I doubt Jesus would've wanted people to think like that. Respect God, yes. Understand "His", ways, but bow down? Put yourself below Jesus? I dont think so.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou know my opinion, everything we know about Jesus is by hearsay. None of the authors have never met themselves. The stories about him is written with a certain agenda.
One of the hardest things for the ego to do,theists and athiests alike, and that is: treat everyone as equal,ie. having equal worth.
i know christians think Jesus is superior to all other humans, but I doubt Jesus would've wanted people to think like that. Respect God, yes. Understand "His", ways, but bow down? Put yourself below Jesus? I dont think so.
But if I was to guess, and my guess is as good as anyone else: Jesus was a humble man. If all christians were as humble as him, then we would have no problems with the christian religion, none whatsoever. There would not be a pope sitting on a gold throne (figurately speaking) while people are starving, the very same people who think that the pope is the voice of god himself. There would not be any fundamentalism, nor cults. Every christian people would be friends with eachother, and not how it is today.
Today the variety of christian branches are so wide, we have difficulties to find a least denominator by them all. The only one I've found is so watered down, so it, in itself, isn't worth very much. The twelve students of Jesus should be 6 billion of them now, then the world would be a good world to live in. An utopia.
But these are my opinions only. Nothing more, nothing less. Others can have theirs and we can have a friendly conversation about it. But not even in this small forum can we be friendly against eachother, no wonder there are religious wars going on in the big world, even between christians.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, I think Jesus would've been more interested in people being "good" and spreading their good energy to others, rather than bowing down to him.
You know my opinion, everything we know about Jesus is by hearsay. None of the authors have never met themselves. The stories about him is written with a certain agenda.
But if I was to guess, and my guess is as good as anyone else: Jesus was a humble man. If all christians were as humble as him, then we would have no problems with the christian religi hother, no wonder there are religious wars going on in the big world, even between christians.
This silliness of going to church and calling yourself a christian because you will be saved if you dont, because you are a sinner who cant help themselves, because there is no other way and you are spiritually dead if you dont follow him , are all self-defeating, negative attitudes to take imo.
Really?
This is the true work of the "devil", who is non-existent and only has the power we give to "him" through the constant negative,separating, fearful reactions/actions.
When you say you or your denomination is better than someone elses , you make the mistake of continuing that 'division' that we are all born into.
Whether Jesus was real or not is not so important in my way of thinking. He had a valid message.
To think that someone like G.W.Bush alligns himself with the church ,to show that he is a righteous dude , is an example of how far out of whack this world is, and how much Jesus' message has been diluted/suppressed/misrepresented.
Originally posted by FabianFnasMay I just interject here?
I suppose that makes sense. It's a better explanation than Palyanka's.
The catholic people actually fall for this? Like worshipping saints, like they actually are gods? Very hinduistic, if you ask me.
I'm not sure if someone else may have already responded to this comment, but I need to correct you here.
One.
The previous comment from Fabian (to which you were responding, about the priests) was in such bad taste I'm surprised that you bother looking at a "spirituality" forum in the first place. If you just want to be offensive on purpose there are other avenues.
Two. (The relevant topic)
You do not "worship" saints. They are not like Hindo gods, shinto Kami, orThey are souls raised to heaven, that show us what we should and (by their example) can aspire to in reaching holiness.
WHILE we pray to GOD we ASK the saints (who having reached heaven already, living in perfect unity with him, are closest to him) to HELP us by ADDING THEIR OWN PETITIONS TO OURS for our petitions. We also ask THEM to pray FOR us, that we may have heavenly help in reaching holiness.
Their are Patron Saints, yes. These are specific saints that are chosen to represent different facets of mortal life. They are chosen for these things by virtue of having been connected with them in some way in life. We pick specific saints to ask for help based on what facet of life we need help with, or that saint that we personally feel connected to by common interest/career/way of life.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCome back to the New Testament to see what is meant by "saints."
They are interesting. Tell me, what is your view on Saints? I thought they were a Catholic thing until I saw whodey reference St Paul.
Some are transformed gods e.g. St. Brigid.
A saint is anyone who has believed into Christ Jesus. That is anyone who has been justified and positionally sanctified because of faith in Christ, is a saint.
I know because of First Corinthians 1:1,2.
"Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Sosthenes the brother,
To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called SAINTS, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours."
Saints = those who have been positionally sanctified in Christ Jesus. They are positionally made holy because of being in Christ Jesus. They are sanctified judicially in view of the fact that they are positioned in Christ Jesus.
The strong implication is that SAINTS includes "ALL THOSE WHO CALL UPON THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST".
When you call on the Lord Jesus Christ, in faith, to believe into Christ, you are instantly made a SAINT simultaneously as you are redeemed by His blood and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by jaywillI am not a saint, will never be, but my mother is! And she is not even a catholic.
Come back to the New Testament to see what is meant by [b] "saints."
A saint is anyone who has believed into Christ Jesus. That is anyone who has been justified and positionally sanctified because of faith in Christ, is a saint.
I know because of First Corinthians 1:1,2.
"Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through th ...[text shortened]... NT simultaneously as you are redeemed by His blood and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.[/b]
The pope is quite overrated as he decides who will be saint and who will not? Who the hëll does he think he is? Deputy god?
Originally posted by jaywillThat passage suggests no such thing. "The called saints, with all those who call...", suggests that Paul is addressing two populations or more, not that he is tacitly defining the term 'saint'.
Come back to the New Testament to see what is meant by [b] "saints."
A saint is anyone who has believed into Christ Jesus. That is anyone who has been justified and positionally sanctified because of faith in Christ, is a saint.
I know because of First Corinthians 1:1,2.
"Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through th ...[text shortened]... NT simultaneously as you are redeemed by His blood and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.[/b]
Originally posted by Dan St JohnIf my appearence is bad taste only because I question the christian religion - what do you then think about everyone here question atheism, evolution and BigBang theory? Don't you think I am insulted by this? Answer: No, because I am not so sensitive about questioning.
May I just interject here?
I'm not sure if someone else may have already responded to this comment, but I need to correct you here.
One.
The previous comment from Fabian (to which you were responding, about the priests) was in such bad taste I'm surprised that you bother looking at a "spirituality" forum in the first place. If you just wan ...[text shortened]... or that saint that we personally feel connected to by common interest/career/way of life.
If questioning is to be bad taste, then you think we shouldn't question anything?
I think you have to rethink of one thing or two.
I've seen people worship saints. I've seen people pray to saints as they are gods.
In your last paragraph you change every " catholic saint" to "hindu god" then you describe the Hindu religion very well. You, in fact, give me credits for my thoughts.
Originally posted by bbarr========================================
That passage suggests no such thing. "The called saints, [b]with all those who call...", suggests that Paul is addressing two populations or more, not that he is tacitly defining the term 'saint'.[/b]
That passage suggests no such thing. "The called saints, with all those who call...", suggests that Paul is addressing two populations or more, not that he is tacitly defining the term 'saint'.
=========================================
That is not borne out by the rest of the New Testament. Rather what I discribed is.
For one, the saints in Corinth were NOT particularly more spiritual then others "who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place." In following chapters Paul says that some of them are immature and natural. Some of them are fleshly and divisive. If only the population in the church in Corinth consists of "saints" what would you point to as making them a special elite among all other Christians ? Not all of them were that developed in spiritual maturity.
Paul calls them "infants in Christ" (3:1) . So "saints" can be spiritual infants.
Paul says some divisive ones among them are "soulish" (2:14). So "saints" who are immature can also be living more in the soul then spiritually.
Paul says some of them are given to "human wisdom" (2:13) . Some of these Corinthian "saints" are still preoccupied with Greek philosophy which Paul would not cator to.
In fact the church in Corinth had many problems as his First Epistle to Corinth reveals. So there is nothing special you can point to placing these Corinthian "saints" above other Christians. They are a typical troublesome group of believers who need much shepherding and development.
They are not some elite group that has been lifted up to "attain" a special class of sainthood. So I stand by the implication that they are saints along - "with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place ..."
Furthermore bbarr, Paul tells the Colossian believers that they have an alloted portion of blessing along with other "saints" .
"Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you for a share of the alloted portion of the saints in the light; Who delivered us out of the authority of darkness and transfered us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:12-14)
I submit then that ALL human beings who have redemption through Christ - the forgiveness of sins, are equally "SAINTS". And the rich blessing of all that Christ is is apportioned up among them.
The last verse in the Bible says "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the SAINTS. Amen." (Rev. 22:21). Yet the same Bible has grace being with ALL (meaning all Christians readers of the epistles)
"Greet those who love us in faith. Grace be with you all." (Titus 3:15)
"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruptibility" (Eph. 6:24) - to all the Ephesian believers.
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen" (Gal. 6:18) - to all the Christians in the churches of Galatia.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ ... be with you all" (1 Cor. 13:14) - to the Corinthian believers.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." (Phil. 4:23) - to all the Philippian believers.
"Grace to you and peace" (1 Thess. 1:1) - to all the Thessalonian Christians.
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all." (2 Thess. 3:18) - again to the young Thessalonian believers.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" (Philemon 25) to this Christian brother.
"Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the full knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" (2 Peter 1:2) - to [b]"those who have been alloted faith eqully precious as ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." (v.1) [/b]
There is nothing in these passage suggesting the recipients were all necessarily more mature, more spiritual, more of some special class then common Christians everywhere. In many cases they had problems with spiritual maturity.
And Jude also says nothing to elevate the first believers from all subsequent ones.
"Beloved, while using all diligence to write to you concerning our COMMON SALVATION, I found it necessary to write to you and exhort you to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the SAINTS." (Jude 3 my emphasis) [/b]
I submit that all believers in Jesus contending for the common faith in Jesus preached by the apostles are "saints". And the Bible closes with the encouragement that God's grace will be with "all the saints".
The bottom line is that believers are not elevated to be "saints" by some elite attainment. They are born again to be "saints".
Originally posted by FabianFnasYour "appearence" is not what I found in bad taste. It was that you chose to interject a slam at priests into what, you have claimed, is a sincere request for information. Not because you question one specific religion or other.
If my appearence is bad taste only because I question the christian religion - what do you then think about everyone here question atheism, evolution and BigBang theory? Don't you think I am insulted by this? Answer: No, because I am not so sensitive about questioning.
If questioning is to be bad taste, then you think we shouldn't question anything?
...[text shortened]... ou describe the Hindu religion very well. You, in fact, give me credits for my thoughts.
I was not raised Catholic. Rather I was raised a combination of Baptist and Methodist. I chose to be Catholic after spending many years searching for what fit right. What was missing from every other chuch/faith/dogma I'd studied or directly looked into.
I don't just have knee-jerk reactions from any idiot that wishes to slam the church. I'd be kicking people right and left. Catholic bashing is now pretty much the only douche-bag past-time left for those that get off on trashing religion.
The Jews are out. You can't make slurs or mock the Muslims without a city getting burned down. The Mormons... nobody really cares enough about them to bother. They aren't a large enough entity to be a threat.
Hell, it's practically sanctioned, thanks to an EXTREMELY small number of BAD Catholics that abused their office. Considering the fact that there are approximately 1,121,516,000 Catholics worldwide (The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2010) anyone that targets Catholics as a whole because of that should be ashamed. You have a population THAT large, there is no way to avoid having at least a small group percentage wise that are bad representatives. You base opinions on any other group (religious or otherwise) similarly, with those numbers, you'd be decried as a fool and an ass.
Now, as to your later statement. You intentionally misunderstood what I was saying. I give you no credit for thinking period. You are still looking at it that we Catholics are praying to saints to do things for us, like Hindu gods. Also you misdirect what I said to imply that the saints "embody" the spirit of those things they are named as patrons of. This is incorrect.
"A patron saint is a saint who is regarded as the intercessor and advocate in heaven of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, or person.[1] Patron saints, because they have already transcended to the metaphysical, are believed to be able to intercede effectively for the needs of their special charges. Some consider it a special devotion to God by displaying humility in asking a saint for intercession instead of being answered themselves"
We chose the saints we "ASK" for help with PRAYING TO GOD, based on our recognition with them. For instance. When I became Catholic I chose a patron saint, whom I felt I held the closest affinity towards. In his life prior to conversion I could see parallels to my own. Therefor, I could see him as an example of how I myself could possibly achieve holiness.
For example, Francis of Assisi loved nature and so he is patron of ecologists. Francis de Sales was a writer and so he is patron of journalists and writers. Clare of Assisi was named patron of television because one Christmas when she was too ill to leave her bed she saw and heard Christmas Mass -- even though it was taking place miles away.
Originally posted by Dan St JohnSo Clare of Assisi was remote-viewing. Is she also the patron of the internet?
Your "appearence" is not what I found in bad taste. It was that you chose to interject a slam at priests into what, you have claimed, is a sincere request for information. Not because you question one specific religion or other.
I was not raised Catholic. Rather I was raised a combination of Baptist and Methodist. I chose to be Catholic after s ...[text shortened]... d she saw and heard Christmas Mass -- even though it was taking place miles away.
Originally posted by jaywillDo you have any textual evidence that the saints to which Paul refers were not more holy than others? It is the holiness that matters (pace the etymology of 'saint', which is traced back to the Greek 'hagios' which means holy, or sanctified and set apart). That a group goes around calling on the name of Jesus in every place is neither necessary nor sufficient for holiness. At best, it is an indication of devotion, but that does not by itself support the contention that all the devoted are saints, or that Paul does not recognize a distinction between devout Corinthians and saints. So, where does Paul explicitly describe some saints as 'immature and natural', or 'fleshy and divisive'? Does he ever say "Look here, some of the saints are immature, natural, fleshy and divisive"? No, he doesn't. In 1 Corinthians, chapters 2 and 3 (which is where you get your claim) Paul clearly distinguishes between those who are mature and those who are immature. Paul clearly distinguishes between the natural person and the spiritual person. So it is really strange that you would want to claim that all those who are born again meet the standard of holiness or sainthood. Paul disagrees. What we have is Paul distinguishing the saints from the merely devout, who are like infants, and then addressing his comments to the multitude. Nothing in 1 Corinthians supports your contention.
[b]========================================
That passage suggests no such thing. "The called saints, with all those who call...", suggests that Paul is addressing two populations or more, not that he is tacitly defining the term 'saint'.
=========================================
That is not borne out by the rest of the New Testament. Rather rn again to be "saints".[/b]
Similarly, Colossians 1:12-14 distinguishes the saints from the others. Read the passage. Paul is claiming here that the devout will be redeemed and saved, and share in the inheritance of the saints, not that the devout are themselves saints. Further, your selective quotation ignores the other mentions of saints in Colossians 1. First, Paul's letter is addressed to the congregation of gentile converts at Colosse, so these are already devout folk. Paul begins his letter by mentioning the love the Colossians have for the saints. This entails that there is a distinction between the saints and the Colossian devout. Later, in Colossians 1:22, Paul claims "But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel". This claim entails that although the devout are reconciled by Christ, the devout are not yet "holy in his sight, without blemish...". They will be if [they] continue in [their] faith. But that word, 'holy', has the same Greek root as 'saint'. So, the upshot here is that saints are those among the devout that have substantial spiritual development. Finally, in Corinthians 1:25-27, Paul again distinguishes the saints from the devout converts. The saints are those to whom has been disclosed the fullness of God's word, the mystery, and to whom "God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery", including the devout, converted gentiles that constitute the local congregations Paul is addressing.
Your final two arguments are just bad.
Just because the rich blessing of Christ will be equally shared among the devout, it doesn't follow that all the devout are similarly spiritually developed, or that all are equally holy, or mature. Some of the redeemed will be natural men, and struggle with faith. Some will be like infants. The promise of Christ is that all can be redeemed, even those who are flawed and immature. But this democracy of redemption and salvation is simply irrelevant to the issue of whether some folks are saints and others aren't, or whether some folks are more holy than others, or whether some exhibit spiritual excellence (what you want to call 'the elite', as though there was something bad about being really good).
You know that there is debate about Revelation 22:21, and whether it should be read as "...the saints", or "...you all", right? Our source documents don't agree here (see Samuel Prideaux Tregelles book on Revelation for evidence of disagreement). But even if it is properly read "the saints", this blessing does not entail that all the devout are saints by definition. Just as above, it is consistent with all the devout being graced that there are some among the devout that are more mature, more spiritual, or who have grasped more fully God's word.
So, nothing you've posted here makes your interpretation particularly plausible, and most of the texts you've referenced actually weigh against your interpretation.
And, concerning your subsequent edits:
All your quoted passages are worthless to your position. Just because all the devout and faithful will receive grace, it does not follow that all the devout and faithful are saints. Let me repeat this, since you seem not to get this point: The claim 'all Christians are recipients of grace', even if true, does not entail or even support the claim 'all Christians are saints'. In fact, my interpretation is better, given your other doctrinal commitments. On my interpretation, we, the flawed and corrupted, can still benefit from the redemptive power and sacrifice of Christ, and receive his grace despite not being as spiritually advanced, mature, and wise as the saints. Even the lowly are saved, saint or not. To claim that all Christians are saints is to seriously misconstrue all of Paul's writings on the matter. Jude 1:3 doesn't support your position either. First, just because we have a common salvation, it doesn't follow that we are all saints. Second, the passage itself indicates the author recognizes a distinction between those to whom the letter is addressed and the saints to whom wisdom was passed down.
======================================
Do you have any textual evidence that the saints to which Paul refers were not more holy than others?
====================================
This positional holiness is because they are separated unto God. Like the the gold was sanctified from being common once it was part of the temple:
"Fools and blind men, which is greater, the gold or the temple which sanctifiess the gold?" (Matthew 23:17) . The gold was made holy by being set apart for God's temple.
The gifts was made holy also by having its positon changed from a common one to being set apart to God's altar:
"Blind men, which is greater, the gift or the altar which sanctified the gift?" (Matt. 23:19)
This holiness that makes the believers "saints" is because they are set apart unto God in Christ Jesus. And all who are Christians have this positional holiness attributed to them. In this sense there are none more or less holy.
=======================================
It is the holiness that matters (pace the etymology of 'saint', which is traced back to the Greek 'hagios' which means holy, or sanctified and set apart).
==============================
The positonal holiness is attributed to all people who are set apart unto God because they are in Christ. So all genuine Christians are "saints" because all Christians, by default, are set apart unto God.
==================================
That a group goes around calling on the name of Jesus in every place is neither necessary nor sufficient for holiness.
==============================
Wrong. All who call upon Jesus and receive Jesus receive the Holy Spirit. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17). Everyone who is joined to the Lord Jesus is positionally set apart from common humanity and are thus "saints", being sanctified in Christ Jesus.
===================================
At best, it is an indication of devotion, but that does not by itself support the contention that all the devoted are saints, or that Paul does not recognize a distinction between devout Corinthians and saints.
==================================
That Paul makes a distinction between saints and other Christians seems to be your argument, not mine. You are the one who suggested the population in the church in Corinth were "saints" but the other Christians were not.
===============================
So, where does Paul explicitly describe some saints as 'immature and natural', or 'fleshy and divisive'?
=================================
Have you read the epistle ? This passage shows that there were "approved" saints in Corinth and disapproved saints in Corinth:
"For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you." ( 1 Cor. 11:19)
So we have Paul saying all the Christians in the church in Corinth are "the called saints" (1:2). Then latter Paul writes that it is unavoidable that some saints will be manifested as approved and others as disapproved (11:19)
Paul also says "For you are still fleshly. For if thee is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and do you not walk according to the manner of man? For when someone says, I am of Paul and another, I of Apollos, are you not men [of flesh]? (3:2-4)
We may assume that those who were acting this way were of the party of the disapproved. We may assume that this immature behavior was probably not that of more approved saints, like the household of Chloe, who alerted Paul to the problem to begin with:
"For it has been made clear to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of [the household of] Chloe, that their are strifes among you. " (1:11)
I suppose one could argue that Chloe and his household was also caught up in the immature strife. But I think it is more likely that Chloe and household observed this negative behavior and made it clear to Paul that there was a problem in the church in Corinth.
The following sentence also indicates that some among the church were puffed up with immature pride:
"Now SOME have become puffed up as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord wills, and I will ascertain not the speech of those who are puffed up but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in speech but in power." (4:19,20)
The phrases "SOME have become puffed up" and "THOSE who are puffed up" indicate that a portion of the saints manifested this behavior. Therefore, some of the saints, relatively speaking, were less spiritually mature then others.
Furthermore Pauls's warning "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump ..." (5:6,7) also suggests that the church was in danger of the bad behavior of SOME needed to be held in check that it would not spread to ALL.
So some were obviously more mature and some were relatively less mature.
Cont. below
==========================
Does he ever say "Look here, some of the saints are immature, natural, fleshy and divisive"? No, he doesn't. In 1 Corinthians, chapters 2 and 3 (which is where you get your claim) Paul clearly distinguishes between those who are mature and those who are immature. Paul clearly distinguishes between the natural person and the spiritual person. So it is really strange that you would want to claim that all those who are born again meet the standard of holiness or sainthood.
======================================
There is a difference between positional sanctification and dispositional sanctification.
Positional sanctification is because, like the gold of the temple and the gift on the altar, their position in Christ has set them apart unto God. They are redeemed. They are justified. They are holy in position and are saints.
============================
Paul disagrees. What we have is Paul distinguishing the saints from the merely devout, who are like infants, and then addressing his comments to the multitude. Nothing in 1 Corinthians supports your contention.
===============================
Among all the saints in Corinth, some were dispositionally approved and some were not. This Paul says is unavoidable. So your theory is not born out in the letter.
"For there must even be parties among you, that those who are approved may become manifest among you." (11:19)
The saints in Corinth therefore manifested some approved saints in their behavior and some disapproved saints in thier behavior.
====================================
Similarly, Colossians 1:12-14 distinguishes the saints from the others. Read the passage. Paul is claiming here that the devout will be redeemed and saved, and share in the inheritance of the saints, not that the devout are themselves saints.
====================================
Verse 14 suggest that ALL who have partaken of redemption are saints in the light. Whoever believes into Jesus Christ is redeemed by His blood.
"In whom we [the saints] have redemption, the forgiveness of sins ... "
Whoever believes into Jesus Christ is forgiven of their sins and receive eternal redemption. From the moment they are saved they are positionally sanctified in Christ and are SAINTS.
This of course, does not negate that the enfluence of the Holy Spirit must grow and spread into and over more and more of thier souls. That is dispositional sanctification.
But like the gold in the temple and the gift on the altar in Matthew 23, thier position in Christ has sanctified them making them saints.
I will examine your other comments on Colossians in another post below.