hey hey religion is dead, the wicked religion is dead!:)

blessing in disguise? being cast out of quicksand is not a bad thing:)

sorry, religion is imbued with extra influence in people’s lives & is collective endeavor, so must be held extra accountable & must respect all members

unfortunately, religion is alive & well, causing spirituality to wane in America

oh Lord, save us from ourselves:)

You would still be a part of the family even if you were excommunicated. You should watch the Catholics Come Home campaign commercial. They give some perspective from which to understand your current family membership  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

Yes, I am a bit suspicious these days, having been excommunicated from Toledo UBF and then leaving UBF in general because of it. 

These discussions have been quite helpful for me, though I do recognize my need to separate my personal experience from theological discussion. For me this may not be possible. Still, I am thankful for our discussions, because dialogue has purpose beyond what we can imagine, so I have no qualms about discussing such things publicly.  

One valuable fact I learned is that in reality I am still RCC, since I never officially left (just stopped going) and the Catholic teaching actually still accepts me (well at least according to Gerardo :). 

I also learned that my “fight” is not against religion, but against legalism and perfectionism primarily. Thank you again, as well as Gerardo! I thank God for both of you and appreciate your speaking out of love for Christ and respect for God, both of which I need to keep learning. 

I agree on your point that even if we are to believe in one true faith it does not necessitate that we put down other denominations as simply religious but not having Jesus. Have you ever read the the Vatican II document lumen gentium? It speaks directly to this point. Have you considered written an article for UBFriends? Your train of thought is very interesting and much more coherant than my usual ramblings. 

If I take your argument at face value, I agree. And I do very much appreciate your earlier clarifications of the Catholic faith. As you can tell, I am currently hyper-sensitive to the word religion, and I was using it at times to springboard into expressing my disgust from my prior baggage.  

Your right that I am using very similar arguments that you have heard in these previous encounters. But that is just because RCC and the early Christians were very religious in their life of worship. While I could attempt to make the connection, I wasnt trying to do so. Instead, I was simply trying to encourage you to look at your experience as a RCC in your earlier life with all it’s religiosity and point out that the early Christians did many similar things which are found in modern day RCC or lutherans or methodist. Hence, the early Christians were also religious. 

That is my argument. You seem to agree with it. I think your last comment really get’s at the heart of what I has been at the back of mind as I read your comments. I feel like you have a lot of baggage from your past as a RC and UBFer. 

The few ardent Catholics I’ve had discussions with (for many hours in person in the past) only wanted to convince me of one thing: that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church of God. They did so by binding the words and actions of the NT apostles to RCC.

For example, they argued that Peter was the first Pope; that the apostles’ meetings were the first RCC councils; that the actions of the angels in Revelations confirms that the RCC mass is God’s way to worship; that the Eucharist is the body of Christ and has power in itself to bring salvation; that the deacons mentioned in the NT were the first bishops, and the list goes on and on. They bound Scripture to the RCC religion.

In other words, they wanted me to admit that the Apostles were Catholics and practicing RCC, and that they instituted RCC as God’s Church and God’s religion.

My concern is that I see these same arguments being made in your comments here in defense of religion. If I am mistaken, then maybe you could succinctly clarify your points?

Beyond that, I am not sure what point you think I am going to try to make. If you think I am going to say.. given all of these facts you should convert to Catholocism! .. then your a bit wrong. If you read my previous posts, you will see that I purposely sideline that issue to stay focused on the issue here. 

If this is not what you think i was going for, then I am at a lost. Not sure what dark secret you think I am trying to unleash on you. =) 

You mentioned:
“You ask did God intend to replace the old religion with a new religion? My reading of the bible seems to indicate yes as we read in the gospels and in the book of acts that the earlly Christians did certain things on a regular basis (e.g., read scripture, sing psalms, break bread).”

I’ll grant that the things you mention do indeed sound like religion. I think I am arguing against a future point that you haven’t made yet, but I suspect you will based on other discussions elsewhere. It seems your train of thought is heading where all of my discussions with Catholics have ultimately gone, and unfortunately, ended. I will discuss religion with you, but I simply cannot go there.

Although I’ve not acknowledged it, quite a few of your points ring true and make sense. But your over-arching reasoning is starting to show dark clouds to me. I’ve been through this logic several times before, and I know where it usually ends. If you are not going there, then I apologize and am eager to continue the discussion.  
 

1) You mention that I “have accepted the Bible as sole authority in your life”. This is not how I see my reality. I have accepted the Bible as the primary authority in my life. In no way am I advocating lawlessness or rebellion against all authority. Freedom can only be fully experienced within the boundary of law. 

2) I am not arguing from a specific position (other than the position of grace). I am attempting to re-formulate my “position”.  For too many years, I argued from the position of religious piety, preaching obedience and conformance to a very specific set of spiritual discipline. Now I have surrendered my life to the grace of God, and working out my beliefs, attempting to reconcile my thoughts with Scripture and to avoid negating my testimony from the past 24 years. 

From time to time, I get caught up in the anger toward certain people and institutions, which I lump under the term “religion” (and probably wrongly so). And perhaps I’m caught up in what some are calling the Third Reformation. In any case, I am thankful for your words and your call to love and pursue Christ. 

I suspect this discussion is becoming pointless. I am really not trying to teach anything, but to learn. I suppose my history of dictating what I learn is not helpful. In any case, I’ll attempt to clarify a few things and reply with my answers to your questions. Then I have to go watch the Super Bowl… :)

“You cite James 1:27 which is a written code on how on should behave”
>>> Fair enough. I admit then, that I accept one written code, which is the Bible.

“…then conclude “Religion that enforces a written code is false religion”
>>> I still agree with that statement: Religion that enforces a written code is false religion. The key word is “enforces”. I reject any religion that uses the Bible like a law book and has “policemen” enforcing regulations, even if they are regulations from the Bible. I further would explain that even the Bible can become an idol, just as mission itself can become an idol. False religion enforces a written code; True religion facilitates a relationship with God and with other people.

You pose several litmus tests for true religion. I know several protestant denominations that would fit that bill. 
>>> Fair enough. Protestant or Catholic, I think the same issues I have with religion apply. I am not attacking any particular religion, but attempting to explain what I’ve learned (and to adjust my thinking if necessary) about religion in general.

“It sound slike you are saying, “I dont like it when certain people get together , call their group something and dont practice the gospel. But I do like it and accept when certain people get together, call their group something, and DO practice the gospel.” Is that the heart of your message? 

>>> I don’t think that is the heart of my message, but it is a pretty close summary of what I meant, yes. I’m saying that religion can be acceptable, but can never be required, not for life nor for salvation.

“If so, then why are you attacking religion in general?”
>>> As I write each comment here, I’m not thinking how I can attack religion. I’m thinking, how can I be for the grace of God? I’m attempting, though perhaps not very well, to further express the truth of what Ben posted in this article, which matches what I’ve been learning the past couple years.

It sound slike you are on board with me and Paul in saiying religion depending on its practice and what it teaches, can be a good thing. 
>>> No, I’m not quite onboard. I’m saying that religion is acceptable as long as it is transparent enough to see Jesus, but religion is not required and not to be enforced. So if I am attacking anything, I would be attacking the requirement of religion. So if someone is RCC, then I am fine with them being RCC. But in fact, what infuriates me is the binding of religion, that is, the binding of Scripture to religion. For example, UBF claims in its official doctrine book that UBF activities are “the truth of God” and that there isn’t any better way (or least hasn’t yet been discovered) to grow to be like Jesus. 

Brian, at this point my head is beggining to hurt because it sounds like you and I are totally on board but you always conclude by condeming ALL forms of religion. You say, these kinds of religions or definitions of what religion is are good . but all religion is opposed to the gospel and hence bad. 
>>> I am intrigued by your repeated referral to “good” and “bad”. While I agree that the definitions of religion given in these threads is “correct”, I do not think religion is good in and of itself. There are two pictures that the pastor team I’m currently learning from have drawn that may help. Hopefully this doesn’t add to your headache!

First, Christianity is not a priority list, where Jesus fits in somewhere in our priorities, religious or secular. Instead, Christianity is a relationship with Jesus where Jesus is in the center of our hearts, and our religion is subordinate to that relationship. I would argue that the “priority list” mindset is fostered by religion and is very different from the “central relationship” mindset.

Second, Christianity is not about having a checklist, where we check off our work each week and feel a sense of relief if we did them, or guilt if we did not. Christianity is not about making our plans and asking God to bless them. Instead, Christianity is about living our lives at the foot of the cross, seeking to let Jesus rule and submitting our plans to God’s plans.

All this is exceedingly clear to me, having lived 20+ years with both a priority list and a checklist. I felt good as long as my priorities and checklists were bigger than most people around me, yet I always had a nagging fear and hopelessness and futility in my heart. That is all gone now that I have surrendered to the grace of God. 

This article describes my position very well although like most people these days, the writer uses the words “legalism”, “moralism” and “performancism” instead of “religion”. When I hear the word religion, I think of all three and see not Scripture imperative to separate them out or not to use the word religion. Still, this article expresses my thoughts much more eloquently than I can:

http://www.mbird.com/2011/11/jesus-plus-nothing-equals-a-gospel-tornado/

“It’s almost as if, for me, the gospel changed from something hazy and monochromatic to some- thing richly multicolored, vivid, and vibrant. I was realizing in a fresh way the now-power of the gospel—that the gospel doesn’t simply rescue us from the past and rescue us for the future; it also rescues us in the present from being enslaved to things like fear, insecurity, anger, self-reliance, bitterness, entitlement, and insignificance (more on all this later). Through my pain, I was being convinced all over again that the power of the gospel is just as necessary and relevant after you become a Christian as it is before.

The Bible makes it clear that the gospel’s premier enemy is the one we often call “legalism.” I like to call it performancism. Still another way of viewing it, especially in its most common manifestation in Christians, is moralism. Strictly speaking, those three terms—legalism, performancism, and moralism—aren’t precisely identical in what they refer to. But there’s so much overlap and interconnection between them that we’ll basically look at them here as one thing… It shows up when behavioral obligations are divorced from gospel declarations, when imperatives are disconnected from gospel indicatives. Legalism happens when what we need to do, not what Jesus has already done, becomes the end game.” 

You then say that “Religion that results in perpetual guilt is false religion. ” I agree that it is false religion is a religion in its doctrinal tenants wants you to only feel guilty and nothing more. Jesus told us he came not to condemn the world but to save it. So which religion are you attacking which holds in it’s tenants that we should only feel guilty and nothing more? It’s true that there are many religious who feel guilty because their religion defines certain actions as morally evil so when they perform them, they feel guilty. As they should! I know your not asking for a cumbayah religion so I am a little confused what you are asking for in a true religion. Religion is naturally going to define and clarify further what is good and what is bad. It is the sign of a good religion to be able to adress new ethical questions and give its adherants answers that will help them to work towards the will of God in their lives. For instance, the Catholic Church (my religion) tells me that abortion is murden and that if I encourage abortion, I am commiting a grave error and put myself at risk for spending eternity in hell. I am glad they teach this. Otherwise you have “I did it my way” Christianity that defines truth, goodness and beuty based on their own feelings and the biblical passages that coincide with them. 

You pose several litmus tests for true religion. I know several protestant denominations that would fit that bill. So i am again unclear by the point you are trying to make. It sound slike you are saying, “I dont like it when certain people get together , call their group something and dont practice the gospel. But I do like it and accept when certain people get together, call their group something, and DO practice the gospel.” Is that the heart of your message? If so, then why are you attacking religion in general? It sound slike you are on board with me and Paul in saiying religion depending on its practice and what it teaches, can be a good thing. 

Brian, at this point my head is beggining to hurt because it sounds like you and I are totally on board but you always conclude by condeming ALL forms of religion. You say, these kinds of religions or definitions of what religion is are good . but all religion is opposed to the gospel and hence bad. 

You ask did God intend to replace the old religion with a new religion? My reading of the bible seems to indicate yes as we read in the gospels and in the book of acts that the earlly Christians did certain things on a regular basis (e.g., read scripture, sing psalms, break bread). They also did other things like meet in councils  and decide on certain practices. For instance, in the council of Jerusalem they said no longer should we bind the gentiles with these precepts but they should still do these other precepts. This all sounds like a new religion to me. Doesnt it to you? A new religion that is promulgated through a new Church. 

You quote colosians chapter 2 as evidence for your position. But read it careful. Saint Paul is attacking *deceptive philosophy*, which depend on human tradition and are worldly. Does that mean he is attacking all philosophy? Absolutely not! Just as he might attack false beliefs but not true beliefs. He is not attacking all forms of tradition but those that take on their origin in the human imagination and not the imagination of God. See 2 Thesalonians 2:15. I would still like to hear a response from you on this. Since he is clearly adminoshing the early Christians to let go of false traditions for true traditions. I know the word tradition is a taboo word among evangelicals but one cannot make a blanket statement that ALL form so of tradition passed on by humans is bad. 

Brian, go ahead and post all the scripture you want. I am perfectly fine with that. I disagree with your particular interpretation of scripture ofcourse as well as the conclusions you are drawing from it. You lastly cite colosians again but Brian, read Acts. There is clearly some form of religious practice going on when they decide on how should gentiles behave. They *people* proclaims that the gentiles should do so and so but not so and so. Sounds very religious to me. 

So perhaps my comments here are coming more from experience than theology. But I am making an attempt to reconcile my thinking with Scripture, i.e. if even one verse contradicts my thinking, I need to change my thinking. I appreciate all who are listening and anyone who comments; this is helping me immensely to find clarity in my thinking and expression of faith.

One other thought in regard to the numerous Protestant denominations and the Catholic church. I see God’s providence in this. Luther sparked the Reformation, and all kinds of religious groups sprang up. The Catholic church is kind of a father figure, holding fast to its positions.

Perhaps there may be a prodigal son type reunion between Catholicism and the Protestant denominations? Perhaps the RCC may become flexible enough to learn from the Spirit’s work to demonstrate the manifold wisdom of God through thousands of believers? Perhaps the Protestant denominations may be flexible enough to learn from the Spirit’s work to establish the RCC? 

What if we all submitted to the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17? What if we forget our minor differences, let our religion fall to the background and begin to claim that we are all Christians with one Lord, one faith and one baptism? There clearly seems to be a core set of identifying marks of Christianity in Scripture that we could all agree on. What a force Christianity would be!

This brings up a good point: if Christianity is not religion, does that mean Christianity has no tradition? I would answer that with “no”. Christianity does have some tradition. Still my point above is valid: even the small amount of tradition found in Scripture should be done transparently, and not in a way that turns tradition into religion and overshadows Christ. 

You asked, “I guess you were Catholic? Is being Catholic being only religious or is it being a full gospel believer?”  Yes, I grew up Roman Catholic, until age 18 (then I joined UBF until 2011). It is clear to me that being Catholic is being religious. Being UBF or being Baptist or being Methodist is being religious. My point, if I have any, is that all those religions should be transparent and subservient to Jesus Himself. If they are not transparent, then they will eventually crumble or become instruments of Satan to wound and destroy.

Certainly it is possible to be RCC and be a full gospel believer. And as you point out, we could substitute “RCC” with any denomination and the statements would remain true.

You also asked, “Is this religion or is it Jesus since these are Jesus’ words?” We are indeed free to decide and we can indeed discern the difference, under the guidance of the Spirit and Scripture. I left UBF last year because I could no longer see Jesus. I had resisted and grieved the Holy Spirit for too long. UBF became an opaque religion– as long as I performed certain actions every year, UBF considered me “ok” and I was given absolute authority to run my chapter.

I left as an “independence movement”, to demonstrate or go “on strike” to show that there is a better way. I left in order to call leaders into repentance for building up walls of religious activity, ignoring the pain of those wounded by UBF ideals and for not living out the love and compassion of Jesus. I left to call attention to sinful and illegal activity. I left in hopes that new dialogues would open up and that UBF could become an instrument of God’s healing and example of a vibrant, healthy community, a community no longer ruled by dictators, but ruled by Jesus.

Before leaving, my family found a “healthier, normal, church community where there are sinners who know they are part of a hospital, and not a separate, special, unique and holy club with ALL the truth.” The problem with any religion (especially of RCC and UBF) is that the religion eventually becomes an exclusive holy club, and not an instrument of God’s healing for the world. When I read Scripture, I see that God clearly wants to form a community of believers (a royal priesthood) so that He can live in us and be His instruments.

So the title “Christianity is the end of religion” doesn’t really capture my thoughts or what I believe Dr.Ben was saying. A better title might be: “Christianity is not religion, it is the fulfillment of religion.”

1) What is the difference between true religion and false religion?

James 1:27 “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Religion that enforces a written code is false religion. Religion that distinguishes between “good” and “bad” people is false religion. Religion that results in perpetual guilt is false religion. False religion is a love for self and a desire for the power, fame or possessions of the world.

Religion that submits to the Spirit and to Scripture is true religion. Religion that distinguishes between “repentance” and “unrepentance” is true religion. Religion that results in helping people in need with compassion is true religion. Religion that does not delight in the sinful ways of the world, but acknoweledges God’s ways are higher than man’s ways, is true religion. True religion is compassion for those in distress and pursuit of God’s ways. Does your religion fall under the Bible’s description of religion accepted by God? If so, then I accept it, regardless of what “ism” you hail from.  Is your religion so opaque that I can’t see Christ? Then I reject it. Is your religion transparent enough that I can see Christ in you? Then I say “amen.”

2) What is the difference between true religion and legalism? 

The difference between true religion and legalism is nearly the same as between true religion and false religion. Legalism is really just one example of false religion. Legalism is a passion for doing things “by the book” or “by the letter of the law.” Legalism provides no room for mercy. True religion is “by the Spirit”, full of mercy, and not simply mercy (the removal of due punishment) but also grace (the undeserved, abounding blessing and favor).

3) What role does true religion play in the life of a Christian?

I am convinced from numerous passages in Scripture (in fact all 66 books), that God’s desire is for us to know Him. The role of true religion, is not to help us to know God better or more perfectly. In other words, I will not know God better by studying the RCC councils or obeying the practices of UBF or even being baptized. But if I go help a distressed person, I have the possibility of discovering much about God. Once I know something about God, I may find that I can learn something from the RCC councils, and I might even find that I enjoy the practices of UBF, and I may have a desire to be baptized as a testimony to the world that I no longer live, or want to do things my way, but I submit to God’s ways.

The role of true religion is to demonstrate our faith and knowlege of God to the world. Our true religion is an expression of our love for God and is refined as He teaches us more and more about Himself through Scripture and the Spirit. 

4) If God prescribed Judaism as His religion, should Christians practice Judaism?

Colossians 2:13-14 “13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,  14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” God indeed did prescribe Judaism as His relgion (though perhaps not all of Judaism, for much was built on what God prescribed). No one is requried to practice Judaism because it was nailed to the cross when Christ died.

5) If Christianity is not the end of religion, then what religion should we follow?

It is clear to me that Scripture does not intend to teach us to follow a religion. Rather, Scripture teaches that we are to follow Christ. If we follow relgion, we will fail. But if we follow Christ, we will succeed in achieving that which religion promises. Our religion follows us as we follow Christ. In other words, Christianity is not so much about shaping us by our religion as it is about Christ shaping our religion through us.

As best as I can see it in Scripture: Christianity is a relationship with Christ Jesus, both personal and communal, which results in sinners being transformed, to have and to express, compassion, love, joy, hope, kindness, peace and all good things.  

God indeed canceled the written code with its regulations. Why would I accept a new set of codes and regulations, even if it might be a better, more clear code?

“13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,  14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.  15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.  16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” (Colossians 2:13-16) 

Colossians 2:1-10 “1 I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. 2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. 6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.”

“How do you go from  Saint Paul critiquing manmade religion to deducing that all religion is of no value?”

Here is what Paul wrote:

“3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh–  4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:  5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;  6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.  7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.  (Philippians 3:3-7)

In these verses, Paul is listing out his Jewish heritage, the religion God prescribed. He says whatever value he had gained through following this religion, it is now a loss.

What does Paul say replaces that Jewish religion, his heritage? If I keep reading, I see that Paul expresses God’s desire to replace the Jewish religious system (which was prescribed by God and served a good purpose for a time) with Christ, and with a righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (not from religion).

“8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ  9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”  (Philippians 3:8-9)

“If you read the entire chapter, you will clearly see that Saint Paul is referring to Pagan practices and perverted Judaism (e.g., worshiping angels).?”

Did I miss something? I don’t see any reference to pagan practices or worshiping angels or perverted Judaism in Philippians 3 or anywhere in Philippians.

So my question is: Did God intend to replace Jewish religion with a new, better, more clear, Christian religion? All indications to me are “no”. I am becoming more and more convinced that God intended to replace Jewish religion with Jesus Christ, to replace religion with the Son.  

In an attempt to comprehend the points you are making, I repeat my questions below, followed by a brief summary of what I hear you saying. Please correct my understanding if I missed what you are really saying.

1) What is the difference between true religion and false religion?
G: There is not a good Bible reference to answer this question. 
G: Christianity is a clear mirror (religion), while Judaism was a dark mirror (religion).
G: Religion is defined as: “*a prescribed belief system for understanding who God is (e.g., Father, Son and Holy Spirit as defined by the council of Nicea) and what he wants from our life (our total complete self). This belief system has certain moral guidelines that say’s dont do this (kill a baby) and you should do that (avoid supporting murder). Furthermore, religion has prescribed method of conducting sunday worship service to avoid having individuals sacrifice bulls.”
G: We all have some form of religion.

2) What is the difference between true religion and legalism? 
G: True religion a belief system that is done for a good end purpose. 
G: True religion is a belief system that is done out of a desire to be in union with the will of God. 
G: False religion is a belief systme that is motivated by ignorant obediance. 

3) What role does true religion play in the life of a Christian?
G: Religion’s role is to shape your thinking and actions.
G: Religion is a prescribed moral system that guides your attitudes, behaviors and life of faith.
G: Justin Martyr’s teaching about the liturgy shows that true religion existed in the early years of Christianity.

4) If God prescribed Judaism as His religion, should Christians practice Judaism?
G: Jesus claimed he would build his own church on Peter with the backdrop of Judaism.

5) If Christianity is not the end of religion, then what religion should we follow?
G: We should follow the religion that Jesus Christ founded through his Church.
G: The fact that there are millions of denominations, if anything, proves the neccesity to identify right religion as opposed to simply relying on “the gospel” and our particular interpretation of it.

At first, you made it seem as if you were arguing against the popular notion that God wants people to simply do good deeds here and there and that is all he wants from us. You pitted the gospel against this notion. I agree with you here. But not when you try to pit a genuine desire to keep the commandments out of Love for Christ against grace. I disagree with you on this point because I think it creates a false dichotomy. Loving God so much that you would desire to keep his commandments is in itself an act of God working in one’s life through grace. I object to you attempting to different the two.  

But I am saying that living a good, moral, ethical, religious life, following the 10 commandments, the golden rule, the great commandment, etc (what most people regard Religion to be), CANNOT save us. Only the Gospel saves us freely by Jesus’ grace alone.

Want biblical evidence between true vs. false religion? Read the passage again. Saint Paul critiques certain teachings as man made and then admonishes his readers to do what he prescribes and teaches. But guess what, Saint Paul is merely a man! But obviously we identify his human teachings as true because we know they originate in God. In fact,  we know from 2 Thessalonians than Saint Paul asked his bretheren to stand firm and hold on to the traditions which were taught by you either through word of mouth or by letter. Again, Saint Paul was merely a man. Are we going to claim that he was teaching man made religion? Ofcourse not. There is obviously a difference between what is taught by men. 

I feel like you and Dr. Toh have been using the “end of religion” to describe a giant amalgamation of pagan belief, old covenant law that was meant for the Jews as well as abused old covenant law.  You previously cited Philipians 3:7-9 as evidence for golspel vs. religion. 
#1 The passage does not say the gospel is better than this boogy monster called religion. It says “knowing Christ” surpasses this X thing. 
#2 This X thing is described as Pauls previous profit and later describes is as much less great vs. knowing Christ. He doesnt say it was wicket just compares it’s value against this new thing (e.g., knowing Christ). That is, he is contrasting the new covenant with his previous way of life which was founded in the law. Jesus ofcourse told us something similar when he said that we should not put new wine in old wineskins (see also Gal 3:24-25). I say Amen with Paul. The law is of no avail to those who know Jesus Christ. Again, he is contrasting a dark mirror to one which allow us to see Jesus face to face (1 Cor 13). So yes, I do consider a clear mirror much better than a dark one. And having experienced the goodness of a clear mirror, the dark one is rubish. But where does he say it is a bad thing in of itself? Saint Paul clearly identifies the goodness of the old way of doing things in Romans but he is merely contrasting how useless it is now that the messiah is known. It is easy to strawman religion by claming that it is a holding on of old things or pagan ideas. But I am doing either. I accept the new covenant with God. 

What I am talking about when I refer to religion is:
*a prescribed belief system for understanding who God is (e.g., Father, Son and Holy Spirit as defined by the council of Nicea) and what he wants from our life (our total complete self). This belief system has certain moral guidelines that say’s dont do this (kill a baby) and you should do that (avoid supporting murder). Furthermore, religion has prescribed method of conducting sunday worship service to avoid having individuals sacrifice bulls. 

I don’t understand why you insist on seeing these things as bad things. I can gurantee most of your life revolves on some form of religion. In fact, the very act of believing in the bible alone or in the idea of validity only through the bible is RELIGION. It’s called reformation theology. No matter how much you try to avoid religion, it is in your face. Even the very act of refusing a denominational title is a religion, its called non denominationalism.  

In question #2, you ask what is the difference between true religion and legalism. Based on my definition of religion described above, I would say the difference is that one is done for a good end purpose and out of a desire to be in union with the will of God (e.g., not killing babies, ensuring that husband do not divorce their wives for silly reasons, preventing blasphamy from being commited during sunday worship service etc…) whereas, the is simply motivated out of ignorant obediance. This is like questioning the difference between a Child who loves his mother and a child who only listen to his mother to avoid getting punished. BIG DIFFERENCE. 

Your third question asked what role does true religion play in the life of a Christian. To answer this, let me ask you several questions.
 – Do you believe in the trinity? Do you believe that the cannon of the bible is closed? Do you believe that abortion is wrong? Do you believe that human cloning is a moral evil? Do you believe that people should be prevented from doing whatever they want during sunday worship service and that not all biblical interpretations are valid? If you answer YES to some or all these questions then hopefully you can understand what role religion plays in the life of a Christian. Whether you are Catholic or methodist, you are shaped by a prescribed moral system that guides you attitudes, behaviors and life of faith. Whether your Lutheran, non denominational, or babtist, you are guided by a particular interpretation of the bible. Heck, the fact that you believe the Gospel is the end of the religion gives a perfect example of what role religion plays in the life of a Christian. 

I continually reference moral issues like abortion and the liturgy because these are very obvious ways in which true religion guides our lives. This is true of the earliest Christians. For instance, Justin Martyr gave us an account of the earliest Christian liturgy during the third century. He wrote

65. We lead him who believes and is joined to us, after we have thus baptized him, to those who are called the brethren, where they gather together to say prayers in common for ourselves, and for him who has been enlightened, and for all who are everywhere. . . . We greet each other with a kiss when the prayers are finished. Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren, and he having received them sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of his Son and the Holy Ghost, and makes a long thanksgiving that we have been made worthy of these things by him; when these prayers and thanksgivings are ended all the people present cry ‘Amen’. . . . And when the president has given thanks (eucharistesantos, already a technical name for the Eucharist) and all the people have answered, those whom we call deacons give the bread and wine and water for which the ‘thanksgiving’ (Eucharist) has been made to be tasted by those who are present, and they carry them to those that are absent.66. This food is called by us the Eucharist” (the well-known passage about the Real Presence follows, with the quotation of the words of Institution).67. On the day which is called that of the Sun a reunion is made of all those who dwell in the cities and fields; and the commentaries of the Apostles and writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. Then, when the reader has done, the president admonishes us in a speech and excites us to copy these glorious things. Then we all rise and say prayers and, as we have said above, when we have done praying bread is brought up and wine and water; and the president sends up prayers with thanksgiving for the men, and the people acclaim, saying ‘Amen’, and a share of the Eucharist is given to each and is sent to those absent by the deacons.  (I Apology 65-67)

As a man who previously attended Mass, I think you might find these description a bit familiar. I present it to demonstrate that religion formed this particular liturgical practice. It had significance for the earliest Christians who were taught by Jesus own apostles! Were they wrong in having a prescribed worship service? 

In your fourth question, you ask if God prescribed Judaism as His religion, should Christians practice Judaism? God does not contradiction himself. He tells us in  Matthew 16, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Clearly he claimed he would build his church in the backdrop of Judaism as I imagine he realized that the Jews would not all accept his teaching. 

You lastly asked, if Christianity is NOT the end of religion, then what religion should we follow. We should follow the religion that Jesus Christ founded through his Church. Obviously as a Catholic I claim that this is the Catholic Church but a babtist would claim that that is the babtist Church. The question is, who is right? That is a discussion for a different topic. I hope you will not try to derail this conversation by pointing out that there are many different denominations as evidence for the failings of religion. Your own view is a religion that prescribes the Gospel as the end of religion and creates it’s own denomination in light of the million of other denominations that already exist. The fact that there are millions of denominations, if anything, proves the neccesity to identify right religion as opposed to simply relying on “the gospel” and our particular interpretation of it.

My hand is tired. I hope we can continue this discussion Brian.  

I had some difficulty sifting through your words, but here are some points I could pull out of your comments above. Before I reply, I want to make sure I’m hearing you correctly.

Are these points correctly representing what you wanted to say? If not, please correct my understanding.

1. It is difficult to discern what is from man and what is from God.

2. God’s individual revelation is important.

3. We should not judge God’s calling as being manmade.

4. Chastising the word religion is not helpful.

5. Calling religion bad is scapegoating.

6. Anyone who stands apart from the 40,000 denominations is creating a new one.

7. We should not split hairs, but build up one another.

8. Our religion does not cause us to fail in our faith.

9. There is no perfect church.

10. Many people tend to live below their religion, not living up to its standards.

11. If we all did live our faith, it would be a joyous world.

I often say that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship and a response. Sorry for my love of alliteration, like another post: Happy, Healthy, Humble View of Self!

Studying the Catholic faith does reveal more than what others tell you about that faith. That Church at least has very clear teaching in their catechism.  But lets say you are of the Church that adopts the Westminster confession.  They also have some clear teaching.  For the sake of unity I will not speak contrary to the doctrines the leadership teaches within my particular body of believers.  I have not found a perfect church yet.  The most amusing Catholics. They live their own religion apart from the teachings of that Church and truely think they are Catholics.  They are the renegade Catholics or cafeteria Catholics and their individual faith tells others falsehoods about Catholicism.  That particular Church claims they have the FULL deposit of faith. To be a Catholic for what that faith truely teaches and claims takes more faith than I could imagine and have rarely seen.  Some of the most virtuous people I have known lived the Bible, didn’t seem to have their Bible memorized, were people of prayer AND were Catholic.  They have more faith than me and they love Jesus, others and themselves.  I can say that many that I have met in the Catholic label would discourage one to become Catholic.  It is the individual and not the denomination that usually fails.  If we all lived the faith we say we believe, truley live it!!!!  ….. what A JOYOUS world we would live in!  It is not the religion or denomination most the time that fails it is the individual.  So, lets build up the individual and not attack their religion.  If they conclude their religion ’caused’ them failings lets pray they grow in maturity and move on.

Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is Christ. There was no religion in Eden; there won’t be any in Heaven. I am far less confused about this point than at any other time in my life. I am also convinced that the prophets cry out a message that points to this truth, that it is what Abraham, Isaac and Jacob looked forward to:

“The affirmation that Christianity is Christ, that “Christianity is the divine,” is not merely advocacy of another variant epistemological ideology or the defense of a more precise orthodox belief-system. This is a call to return to the reality of the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ as the ontological essence and behavioral expression of Christianity.”

http://www.christinyou.net/pdfs/Christiantynotrel.pdf  

My personal thoughts: Christianity is not religion, yet religion (a set of beliefs about a diety or dieties) normally does develop around Christianity. In fact, numerous religions have been built up around Christ. As long as that religion is put into practice in a way pleasing to God (as the book of James declares) and as long as that religion is transparent enough to still see Jesus, that religion is acceptable to God and to people.

One problem is that a lot of today’s generation has not seen Christianity– because it has been blocked out of sight by religion so thick and so demanding and so full of failure, that we cannot see Jesus. So God is breaking down the walls through His Spirit. This makes religious people angry, upset and/or nervous (those who have a lot to lose from their religion falling down).

1) What is the difference between true religion and false religion?

2) What is the difference between true religion and legalism? 

3) What role does true religion play in the life of a Christian?

4) If God prescribed Judaism as His religion, should Christians practice Judaism?

5) If Christianity is not the end of religion, then what religion should we follow? 

Neither of these groups villainize religion in general. Rather, both claim that they are the only true religion (or at least the best religion). I’m fine with people being in either the RCC or UBF, but I choose to be part of neither and see no requirement in Scripture to compel me to do so.

As I mentioned above, for me, this debate ends in Philippians 3:1-21. Especially Philippians 3:7-9 speak to this matter. After listing his major religious accomplishments, Paul says all that is rubbish to him, compared to knowing Christ.

Who practiced God’s religion better than Paul? Yet he says all that religion is a loss compared to Jesus (the gospel).  The word religion or religious only appears 11 times in Scripture (by my count in the NIV84). But the concept of religious activity being pitted against the grace of God found in the gospel of Jesus is a repeated theme of Romans and I would argue even in James, and I think is a central concept in Job’s discussions.

Amos certainly had something to say about it as well (Amos 5:21-27).  Amos asks if Israel brought sacrifices and offerings (religion) in the desert? Although this is a rhetorical question, No, they did not, at least not in the fully prescribed way of the permanent temple. I see a repeated theme that God does not delight in sacrifice–religion (Psalms 51:16-19), even though God allows true religion and prescribed certain practices for a time.

As one person wrote: “So, reasons YHWH with His people, were you accepted by Me because you correctly offered sacrifice? Or was it on a different basis?

Although the nation in Amos’ day looked to the sacrificial system and thought that their acceptance was founded in the correct offerings and procedures, a consideration of their history would have shown up that belief to have been a false one. As Amstu writes

‘God’s point via the rhetorical question…is simply that offerings are not really what make His people right with Him. In the absence of a regular sacrificial program, the people were still covenantally His during the forty years in the wilderness’” (source)

Although yes we all have some form of religion, Christianity marks the end of one prescribed religion for everyone and reveals God’s heart for many things beyond religion. Instead of one religion, we have one faith, one Lord, one mission, one gospel — and are free to put our religion into practice as God directs us. So to me, it is fine to be RCC and it’s fine to be UBF, but neither can claim that they are the only religion, and neither can coerce me to become part of their religion.

“7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”

Read Brian’s message below. It seems like you can tell the difference between right and false religion but Brian says he can’t. I feel this inability comes precisely from these kinds of quirky messages that confuse the faithful who are deeply committed to serving Christ with their lives. 

You say you find this distinction everywhere. Show me ONE passage in which religion was being practice as God prescribed (e.g., animal sacrifice with a circumsized heart) but God said to do otherwise. I imagine you will come up with a handful of passages in which God is displeased with particular religious practices because of the condition of the human heart and not the practice itself. 

If you read the old testament carefully, you will see that God himself prescribed many of the religious rituals which the Jews practices. For instance, God told the Jews to built the arc of the covenant. God told the Jews to abstrain from certain foods. These things had a point ofcourse which is why God was often angry at the Jews when they practices these things outside of their points. 

I listened to an atheist’s response to this debate recently. He couldn’t tell the difference between religion, legalism or the gospel (so he hates them all!). Yet he had some very valid points. And he actually had some thinking that (in my observation) expressed what Jesus actually meant by what He said and did.

People in and out of church are confused these days. Why? I believe it is because we Christians have been confusing them and ourselves (to the Devil’s delight). We say “by grace through faith!” Yet we add “and also by religion and tradition!”. We say “you don’t need anything but Jesus!”. Yet we also demand “Come to church! It’s good for you!”. 

The word “Religion” used in this post obviouly denotes “False Religion.” Linguistically and ascetically it is a lot easier to just say/type/blog “Religion” instead of saying “False Religion,” which I think is cumbersome.

I would dare say that most people outside of the church, when they hear the word Religion, James 1:27 is not what they think. Rather, I would bet my life on it, that they would more likely think of Pharisees, self-righteousness, self-justification, being sanctimonious, condescending, hypocrisy, Jim Swaggard, Jim Baker, pedophile ministers, and the list can just go on and on.

Also, I would say from observations of myself and other Christians, that we default to thinking that if I do good, God/Jesus will be good to me. That is “Religion” speaking, and it is clearly NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is, even though I am rotten to the core (which I am), God still loved me and gave me His Son and His Spirit. Only the Gospel touches and transforms my rotten heart. Religion can never do that.

You said, that the religion/faith distinction is not technically doctrinally correct? So why would you continue trying to teach this to a group of people who more or less have a strong understanding of religion? Technically incorrect = not correct. It is a useful analogy but you can’t push much father than that. My concern has always been people taking flashy, pwowerful or cute sayings, that try to convey a particular truth, and then extending them to be truth itself. 
As I have said before, such messages need to be tempered or else they run the danger of being passed off as true and confusing the faithful. I think we need to be responsible of the messages we preach in the pulpits, in our bible studies etc. 

You said, “religion has enough negative connotations to be use as a fair title for the category of works’-righteousness.” James 1:26 says those who consider themselves religious **and YET** do not hold a tight reign on their toungues deceive themselves **THEIR** religion is worthless. 

Notice a couple of things, it does not say RELIGION is deception. It does not make such a blank statement as you would like Tim Keller might like us to believe. Also, to use the word **AND YET** denotes the idea that they are falling short of what it means to be religious. The fact that there is a worthless type of religion obviously assumes that there is one that is not worthless. 

The fact of the matter is, Saint James is clearly differentiating right from false religion here. I am sorry if our opposition comes off as harsh towards your particular interpretation of the bible. But you need to keep in mind that your interpretation of the bible is slap in the face to billions of Christians. And you make this claim in light of an absent biblical passage that specifically condemns all forms of religion. I know that your intention here in making a distinction between faith and religion is to precisely combat self righteousness through a works focused perspective on having a relationship with God. But please, dont throw out the baby with the bath water! 

Your point about OT prophets is quite relevant.

As I continue to come out of my ultra-religious life, I am finding a strong pull toward the OT books, 1 Samuel, Job, Ezekiel, Amos, Zechariah, Zephaniah. We who claim to be Christians would do well to heed God’s message spoken through them.

For me, this debate ends in Philippians 3:1-21. Especially Philippians 3:7-9 speak to this matter. I really believe Apostle Paul was “losing his religion” (80’s pun intended…) “7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.”
 

That’s why I think this Gospel/Religion dichotomy, though not technically and doctrinally correct, is nonetheless true in how many today (mis)understand religion. That’s why it works for me, and it works for those whom I attempt to explain it to.

As I have said before, I think a more central topic of discussion is the tendency for pastors to not tapper their powerful messages a little. For instance, we might hear a message where someone says, “You are a dirty sinner and nothing you do on your own can change that. You are like dung to God, your attempts to please him a part from faith are meaningless.”

While this message is inspirtational for someone who is completely works focused, it is not totally accurate. Yes, we are sinner but we are also his creation. Yes, our works apart from him are error prone and careless but the bible suggests that God is pleased even by our little attempts at doing good (especially among those who do not know him) provided that this desire comes out of agape Love. To say that God see’s as a dung really begs the question of whether we see our own children as dung when they have done something heinous. I know human analogies only go so far since God is perfect but they still help us to tapper inspiration well meaning messages that are not totally founded in truth.

Dr. Toh, I am curious what your personal reaction has been to the charitable opposition you have received here. It seems like many of my facebook friends were quite surprised by the opposition they received when they posted the video. i do hope my various comments are not insulting. I have a lot of respect for you. Sincerely.