The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

Is there any distinction between a Saint and a Christian?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,769 times Debate No: 35292
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Hi. I'm Justin Moffatt and I will be representing the Pro this round. I will be stating that there is, in fact, a difference between "Saints" and "Christians".

Since my opponent hasn't provided any definitions for this round. I will take the liberty to provide them.

Saint- One eminent for piety or virtue.

Christian- One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My first and only argument this round is simple. Christians can be saints. Saints can be Christians. But Christians and saints are definitely two very distinct terms.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


They are only one. If you are a saint you are also a christian. Before the time of Christ they are called Saints. After his ascension in heaven they were called christian in Antioch.


I agree with what my opponent is trying to say. Christians in heaven are saints; blameless, according to the Bible. However, the definition of Saints and Christians are such that a non-Christian, yet completely moral, person could also be a Saint. And Christians could be immoral, and not be Saints by the definitions in this round. Can my opponent challenge this?
Debate Round No. 2


The root word of the word saint corresponds to the Latin word sanctus which means "holy" or "sacred." Thus, someone who is sanctified is "set apart for holy use." Surely Christians are made holy by the atoning work of Christ at Calvary on the cross. They of themselves are not holy, but once they become saved, they are set apart for holy use by God and that is to glorify God and share the Good News with those who are not yet saved. The Catholic use of this word is to have someone "beatified" or "canonized" which means that they are among the saints whose names have already been recorded in the Bible or by the Catholic church. If the Latin adjective sanctus means to be "holy" or "sacred", the closely related word sancio is the verb form which means "to consecrate."


Ladies, gentlemen, and canines of extreme intelligence. My opponent brought up some very valid points, but failed to do one thing specifically. He failed to negate the resolution. He conceded my definitions, therefore we must operate on the assumption that those definitions are law in this round. It is evident that, in these definitions, Saints are very much distinct from Christians.

But since it wouldn't be any fun if I also didn't poke holes in his last argument, however inconsequential it may be to this round (since he conceded my definitions), I will do so.

My opponent operates under the assumption that Christians are saints because they're holy, or that they're sacred. He also presumes that other devout followers of varying religions are not, in fact, saints. However, even by his description of saint, "holy" or "sacred", Christians are certainly not wholly holy (Get it? Heh heh). Also, worshipers of other gods could be holy according to their own religious text or beliefs. That would classify them as saints as well. The roots of the word don't matter. Although they provide insight, they do nothing to affect its meaning today. It's like a big family tree that's traced back many generations. It's impressive. It's fun to look at. You can get a giggle out of reading funny names of predecessors. But in the end, it doesn't change who you, or I, are. Neither does stating that the catholic church used the word "saint" one way dictate how it is used today.

I already provided a definition for the word which is definitely distinct from your description and, more importantly, the definition of "Christian".

So vote Pro, please.

Thank you to my opponent for this debate. I see that you're a bit new, which is fine. You're obviously very intelligent. Try to lay out your own arguments in the future, without a video. (Most don't accept that as a legitimate argument) And remember to define your terms. ;) I hope you have a great and successful career, sir. Adios.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Using a video to present arguments is a conduct violation. Links can only be used as evidence to support arguments made in the text of the debate. The video shows Con is using "saint" in the Catholic sense of the word. The Catholic requirement for canonization is that the person be found to have performed at least one miracle. Con never tried to make a case. He needed to state contentions and give supporting evidence and arguments. Pro didn't need to say much under those circumstances. His argument that saints are Christians but not all Christians are saints sufficed, because Con implicitly accepted canonization as the defining requirement.
Vote Placed by GOP 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Pro because I feel that Con abused the option of using sources. I mean, he just used a source to do the arguing for him. Sources are used to BACK UP someone's point, not to MAKE one. Con also conceded Pro's definitions. He failed to negate the resolution.