Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
If the Bible's definition of religion is not good enough for me, then why should I accept Lee's definition of religion.
Read Revelations.
The Lord calls overcomers in all seven churches.
The rest of Revelations also speaks of escaping the evil age.
|
That's not Lee's definition.
This concept of religion versus personal relationship is well known in Christianity. Even Catholics have adopted this idea of personal relationship versus religion.
For example see here:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christi...ationship.html
practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship.
Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God
Christianity is not about signing up for a religion.
It is just generally accepted that Christianity is about a relationship with God not a religion. It has nothing to do with the verse in James, that's taken out of context. In fact, it's a good one for Catholics to use as it indicates that pure religion is to adopt a works-based theology. We can add to it that "faith without works is dead". And there we can construct what is essentially the Catholic view.
If you want further proof that your interpretation is out of context, consider Ellicotts bible commentary on this verse:
Pure religion . . .—It will be observed that by religion here is meant religious service. No one word can express this obvious interpretation of the original, taken as it must be in completion of the verse before; and certainly “religion” in its ordinary sense will not convey the right idea.
In other words, the verse is about religious
service, and not a black and white definition of religion. You seem to have misinterpreted the word "religion" to mean religion in general, and so you do not have "the right idea".
So the verse should be interpreted as:
"pure religious service is....."
not as you have "religion is..."