THE NEW TESTAMENT frequently introduces us to people who were devoutly religious but not pleasing to the Lord because of their teachings, their concepts, their worship, yea, their religion...
Consider those who were converted and added to the Lord's church on the day of Pentecost ( Acts 2:1-47).* These individuals, even prior to their being added to the church, were "devout men." They were very religious as seen in their coming to Jerusalem from every nation under heaven. No matter how far, they had come to Jerusalem in keeping with Old Testament decree (cf. Num. 28:26ff). They were very religious as seen in their expressed disdain for what they thought was drunkenness. Still further, they were very religious as seen in their detailed knowledge of Old Testament Scripture. When Peter corrected their accusing the apostles of drunkenness, he explained the events of the day as the fulfillment of the predictive prophecy found in the book of Joel. Contextual implication suggests that they knew exactly what the prophecy was and what it meant. They were very religious. But in spite of their religious posture, they were commanded:
KneEmail: "...Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." ( Acts 2:38).
THOUGHT: Why were they thus commanded, if they were -- in their current religion -- pleasing to the Lord? Why, if one religion is just as good as another? (Dan Winkler)
*Every reference to the church prior to Pentecost of Acts 2 refers to it as something that will come, something in the future. Every reference to the church after Pentecost of Acts 2 refers to it as something in existence. It is, therefore, accurate to conclude that the "church of the Lord" was established on earth on this glorious day.