You are simply heeding a Catholic tradition of men, NOT an idea that comes from God in His Word. There simply are too many Scriptures in The New Testament Epistles that use the term "saints" when speaking to believers on Christ Jesus in a general sense for it to mean an elect within an elect. What you have succumbed to is a tradition of men, and not God's written Word.
I Have learned after 10 years of this that debating with people with closed minds is not worth my time. That being said, I have been clear that the Catholic dogma of venerating the saints is heretical calling it the dirty bath water. Protestantism was reactionary religion, and some of the worst heresies addressed were those of paying indulgences to the saints and praying to them. But in throwing out the bath water, they threw out the baby that was in it. I stand behind that claim not because of tradition and doctrine but because of the teaching of the Holy Ghost. It is you who have closed your mind and are unable to be taught by the Holy Ghost because you are hanging onto the traditions you were taught in Protestant circles, and the Hatred for all things Catholic in many of those circles. I am not saying become a catholic nor trying to proseletyze you into their dogma I am rather searching for the truths that have kept the church separated and trying to bring the body together as one and this is one of those things that can do it, a right understanding of the Word.
In every one of those verses that you posted I see this distinction between the faithful and the saints espoused, You just have your assumption handd to you by tradition that you are unable to see it. You in other words have closed your mind from divine revelation.
Read the following and let the words convict you...
No Revival without Reformation - A.W. Tozer
No Revival without Reformation
(an excerpt from The Deeper Life)
by A.W. Tozer
Wherever Christians meet these days one word is sure to be heard constantly repeated" that word is revival. ...
So strongly is the breeze blowing for revival that scarcely anyone appears to have the discernment or the courage to turn around and lean into the wind, even though the truth may easily lie in that direction. Religion has its vogues very much as do philosophy, politics and women's fashions. Historically the major world religions have had their periods of decline and recovery, and those recoveries are bluntly called revivals by the annalists.
Let us not forget that in some lands Islam is now enjoying a revival, and the latest report from Japan indicates that after a brief eclipse following World War II Shintoism is making a remarkable come-back....
A religion, even popular Christianity, could enjoy a boom altogether divorced from the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and so leave the church of the next generation worse off than it would have been if the boom had never occurred. I believe that the imperative need of the day is not simply revival, but a radical reformation that will go to the root of our moral and spiritual maladies and deal with causes rather than with consequences, with the disease rather than with symptoms.
It is my considered opinion that under the present circumstances we do not want revival at all. A widespread revival of the kind of Christianity we know today in America might prove to be a moral tragedy from which we would not recover in a hundred years.
Here are my reasons. A generation ago, as a reaction from Higher Criticism and its offspring, Modernism, there arose in Protestantism a powerful movement in defense of the historic Christian faith. This, for obvious reasons, came to be known as Fundamentalism. It was a more or less spontaneous movement without much organization, but its purpose wherever it appeared was the same: to stay 'the rising tide of negation' in Christian theology and to restate and defend the basic doctrines of New Testament Christianity....
Falls Victim to Its Virtues
What is generally overlooked is that Fundamentalism, as it spread throughout the various denominations and nondenominational groups, fell victim to its own virtues. The Word died in the hands of its friends. ... An unofficial hierarchy decided what Christians were to believe. Not the Scriptures, but what the scribe thought the Scriptures meant became the Christian creed. Christian colleges, seminaries, Bible institutes, Bible conferences, popular Bible expositors all joined to promote the cult of textualism. The system of extreme dispensationalism which was devised, relieved the Christian of repentance, obedience and cross-carrying in any other than the most formal sense. Whole sections of the New Testament were taken from the church and disposed of after a rigid system of dividing the Word of truth.
All this resulted in a religious mentality inimical to the true faith of Christ. ... The basic doctrines of the Bible were there, but the climate was just not favorable to the sweet fruits of the Spirit.
The whole mood was different from that of the Early Church and of the great souls who suffered and sang and worshiped in the centuries past. The doctrines were sound but something vital was missing. The tree of correct doctrine was never allowed to blossom. The voice of the turtle [dove] was rarely heard in the land".... Faith, a mighty, vitalizing doctrine in the mouths of the apostles, became in the mouth of the scribe another thing altogether and power went from it. As the letter triumphed, the Spirit withdrew and textualism ruled supreme....
In the interest of accuracy it should be said that this was a general condition only. Certainly there were some even in those low times whose longing hearts were better theologians than their teachers were. These pressed on to a fullness and power unknown to the rest. But they were not many and the odds were too great" they could not dispel the mist that hung over the land.
The error of textualism is not doctrinal. It is far more subtle than that and much more difficult to discover, but its effects are just as deadly. Not its theological beliefs are at fault, but its assumptions.
It assumes, for instance, that if we have the word for a thing we have the thing itself. If it is in the Bible, it is in us. If we have the doctrine, we have the experience. If something was true of Paul it is of necessity true of us because we accept Paul's epistles as divinely inspired. The Bible tells us how to be saved, but textualism goes on to make it tell us that we are saved, something which in the very nature of things it cannot do. Assurance of individual salvation is thus no more than a logical conclusion drawn from doctrinal premises, and the resultant experience wholly mental.
Read More here:
No Revival without Reformation - A.W. Tozer - Sermon Index