Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
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 ...
|
That's because you/others don't like me quoting Lee/Nee alone, so I go to outside, theological sources which prove you wrong. Just like on other discussions I consulted the works of NT Greek experts and theologians and proved people wrong about the role of women in the church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
(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. |
It's out of context because you're talking about "Lee's definition of religion", and then quoting James to counter Lee's definition (which is really not his alone - see gotquestions article).
But James is not defining religion, he is talking about proper religious service. Let me remind you, that unless you are a Catholic, the gospel and Christian story is based upon the 4 gospels and Paul's writings, not James. The Catholic gospel revolves around the book of James, concerning good works for getting us to heaven, and practical service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
(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.
|
The verse in James is about practical service. It does not negate all that Lee and the gotquestions article says about Christ versus religion, because they are different matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
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.
|
Witness Lee wrote that the religious service James talks about is very good and helpful for practical Christian perfection. But Paul wrote about God's New Testament economy concerning Christ living in us. There's no need for you to try and portray James as being opposed to "Christ versus religion" - it's not. Christ is versus religion and at the same time, the lessons in James for practical Christian perfection are very important.