Now here is the thing that this evangelist has wrong --------Man reaching out to God means nothing--God's Face is turned from unbelievers -------Iniquity and sin blocks man from God so there is no way for man to reach out to God and be heard -----and that is scriptural ---so this evangelist is ignorant of Scripture ----
Hmm, I think you missed who was saying what. The evangelist who said religion was men reaching out to God seemed to be mildly against the word 'religion' before all these other cliches grew up around it to replace the Gospel, or before I heard them.
Do you think, "Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship." is the gospel or part of it?
In another post, I quoted where Paul told about how God had done all these things for men that they might reach for him, and find him. I also quoted from Jeremiah where God told Israel to seek Him and they would find Him if they sought Him with all their hearts.
Unbelievers need the Gospel to be reconciled to God. But they can reach out to God as God's grace enables them to through the Gospel. And believers can reach out to God, in prayer, for example, as God works in us to will and to do according to his pleasure. So if his (made-up, not in the dictionary, non-historical-Christian, confusing to regular speakers of the English language who do not know the new made up lingo) definition of religion was 'man reaching out to God' that doesn't make religion all bad.
God Reaches out to man and Draws man to Him -----Man cannot reach out to God draw God to him -----------
If you have a toddler and put your arms out to pick him up, he might lift up his arms to. He reached out to you. We love God because He loved us first. The verse I quoted from Paul's message to pagans in Athens was about men groping/reaching for God, and doesn't say they heard the Gospel.
Of course-- these are just definitions of 'religion' that preachers and others made up. And we can confuse the living daylights out of someone if we try to 'share the gospel' with them, then go off on this irrelevant tangent of 'religion' being bad when they have no clue what these recent made up definitions are.
Isaiah 59
Sin and Redemption
59 Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
2
But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.
John 6:44
AMP
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him [giving him the desire to come to Me];
Where is the contradiction between what I wrote--or what the evangelist who I disagreed with said-- and what you wrote?
Here is what I suspect. I think you probably grew up in a church or were around Christians and heard so many anti-religion-pro-relationship speeches that you think it must be typical of Christianity, that it must be holy, so you are just trying to find a way to argue for it because it just might feel uncomfortable to you to think this kind of talk may be a distraction to most people. Do you think 'not a religion; it's a relationship' is the Gospel? Why isn't that speech in the Bible when the apostles preached the Gospel? Why didn't Jesus say to preach that in Matthew 28 or Luke 22? Why didn't Peter preach it in Acts 2, and why isn't it in any of the other evangelistic messages in Acts? Why isn't it the epistles or Paul's summary of the Gospel in I Corinthians 15 in the opening verses? Why does scripture have promises of salvation that do not mention those concepts?