Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
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..."
|
Funny how you decided not to quote Lee's generally accepted definition of "religion" for scrutiny, but dig up Charles Ellicott's, who btw was a Bishop in the Anglican Church, which you have blasted endlessly since you have begun posting here. Setting the obvious irony aside, there are a few issues here ...
(1) How is my definition of "religion" from James 1.27 taken out of context?
(2) How does "religion" differ from "religious service?"
A. If religious service is interpreted as a meeting or church service,
then I would disagree, citing the context of James words.
B. If religious service is interpreted as our service to God in our daily life,
then I see no difference between James and Ellicott.
(3) How does Ellicot's comments about this verse alter our discussion? He cites the prior verse concerning "not bridling his tongue and deceiving his own heart." Couldn't we say that this verse (1.26) characterizes James entire epistle concerning the hypocrisies of a double-souled man?
In his footnote for this verse, Lee says "
religious is from the Greek word threskos meaning ceremonial service and worship to God (implying the fear of God.)" We could thus rightly translate this verse to be, "
If anyone considers himself a worshiper of God." I think that captures the sense of the original. So James is here addressing the attitudes of religious people who worship God, especially those religious folks whose version of religion conflicts with God's love and holy nature.
James provides spiritual feedback for those who have gone off course. He provides a sober warning to every child of God. His "faith tests" are sorely needed in TLR. Sadly the message of the epistle of James has been grossly dismissed by the leadership at LSM, who need it most.