Latest / Reformed Thinking / How to Honor God Alone and Reject Every Idol | John Calvin

Transcript

How to Honor God Alone and Reject Every Idol | John Calvin · Reformed Thinking

0:00
You know when you walk into a high level laboratory, you
0:02
usually see that one specific instrument sitting under a glass
0:05
case. Oh yeah, rested on one of those
0:07
specialized granite tables. Right.
0:09
And those tables are designed specifically to absorb even the
0:13
most microscopic vibrations from the building.
0:15
I mean you do not lean on that table.
0:17
No, and you definitely do not place a coffee cup anywhere near
0:21
it. Absolutely not.
0:22
You do not throw your car keys on a highly calibrated
0:25
scientific scale. You just do not do it.
0:28
Because the entire setup exists for one singular purpose, which
0:32
is absolute uncorrupted precision.
0:35
So why is it that when we step out of the laboratory and into
0:38
the realm of human spirituality, we start throwing car keys and
0:42
coffee cups and random loose change onto the scale?
0:46
Yeah, and all while expecting it to give a perfectly accurate
0:49
reading of the highest being, right?
0:50
Why do we do that? Well, I think it is because we
0:53
are terrified of the silence and the strictness of that pure
0:57
environment. Terrified of the silent?
0:59
Yeah, because, you know, for this latest piece of dust, a
1:01
minor shift in room temperature, we're just a single breath can
1:05
compromise the measurement of that scale.
1:07
Yeah, the strict purity of the environment is the only thing
1:10
guaranteeing the absolute truth of the result.
1:12
Spot on. And when it comes to
1:14
spirituality, human nature constantly crowds the mechanism
1:17
with our own inventions, additions and noise.
1:21
Because a clean, uncorrupted space just feels way too
1:24
vulnerable. Precisely.
1:26
We want the truth of the highest being, but we want it on our own
1:29
cluttered terms. Welcome to Reformed Thinking.
1:32
Today we are taking a deep dive into an absolute master class on
1:36
that very problem. And it is a fascinating problem
1:39
to unpack. It really is.
1:40
We're opening up excerpts from John Calvin's Institutes of the
1:43
Christian Religion, specifically focusing on his arguments
1:46
regarding how the highest being must be distinguished from
1:49
idols. Right to ensure perfect honor is
1:52
given to him alone. And I want to speak directly to
1:54
you, the listener, right from the top.
1:57
Whether you are studying historical theology or you are
2:00
just insanely curious about the philosophy of worship and human
2:03
behavior, this discussion is going to clarify the strict,
2:07
almost mathematical logic behind these ancient arguments.
2:11
The logic here is incredibly rigorous.
2:13
I mean, the author does not pull any punches.
2:16
No, he really does not. He establishes these strict
2:18
boundaries between pure piety and superstition, arguing that
2:22
getting this distinction wrong is not some minor, forgivable
2:25
misstep. Right.
2:26
It results in severe catastrophic consequences.
2:29
The stakes are as high as they can possibly be, and that is
2:32
because the author diagnosis A fatal flaw in the human mind.
2:36
Which is this hardwired inclination to take divine glory
2:39
and just distribute it among a massive throng of lesser
2:43
entities? Yeah, we just cannot seem to
2:44
help ourselves. So let's investigate that
2:46
hardwired inclination. The opening argument draws a
2:50
hard line in the sand regarding what knowledge of God actually
2:53
entails. It states that this knowledge
2:55
cannot rest in cold speculation. Right.
2:57
It must carry with it the honoring of him.
3:00
But we push back on that for a second.
3:02
Go for. It if I know a fact, say I know
3:06
the freezing point of water, I possess knowledge, why does this
3:10
theological framework insist that intellectual
3:13
acknowledgement is completely insufficient?
3:16
Because the object of the knowledge dictates the required
3:19
response. OK, unpack that for me.
3:22
Well, knowing the freezing point of water is a sterile fact, you
3:25
know it demands nothing of you. True, But knowing the Creator of
3:28
the universe is an active relational reality.
3:31
So you cannot just treat it like trivia.
3:32
Absolutely not. You can sit in a room and
3:35
intellectually agree that a supreme being exists, but if
3:38
that acknowledgement remains means cold speculation, it is
3:41
worse than useless. He argues it as an insult.
3:43
Yeah, true knowledge of this specific object demands a
3:47
response. It requires action, and
3:49
specifically an action defined by strict unyielding boundaries.
3:53
So it is kind of the difference between knowing the definition
3:56
of a parachute and actually pulling the RIP cord when you
3:58
were falling out of an airplane That is a.
3:59
Great way to put it. The knowledge only becomes real
4:03
when you act on it. And the text takes this even
4:05
further. He asserts that when Scripture
4:08
declares there is one God, it is not simply establishing a title.
4:13
Right, it dictates a hard and flexible rule.
4:16
Nothing belonging to his divinity can be transferred to
4:19
another. Not even a fraction.
4:21
Of a single drop, and that is a staggering claim if you think
4:24
about the implications it means. Divinity is an entirely closed
4:27
system. Spot on.
4:29
The attributes, the honor and the reverence due to the highest
4:32
God are entirely proprietary. So to transfer any of that to
4:36
another entity, whether an Angel, a St., or an ideology, is
4:40
a complete violation of that closed system.
4:42
It is essentially cosmic plagiarism.
4:44
Cosmic plagiarism. Wow, I like that phrasing and I
4:47
want to look at the vocabulary of the author uses here because
4:49
he brings in the Greek word use baya.
4:51
Right, which translates generally to religion.
4:54
But it carries this really heavy connotation of befitting
4:56
reverence. It implies there's a proper
4:59
fitting way to approach the divine in a highly improper way.
5:03
Even the ancient Greeks, whom the author describes as groping
5:07
in darkness, understood this basic principle.
5:10
They felt the intrinsic need to adhere to a definite rule right
5:14
to avoid a perverted honoring of the divine.
5:17
Yeah, they recognize that without a rule, worship just
5:19
devolves into chaos. They knew there was a right way
5:22
and a wrong way to approach the altar, so to speak.
5:25
To contrast this, the text brings up the Roman philosopher
5:28
Cicero. Oh right, Cicero had a whole
5:30
theory about the origin of the word religion.
5:33
He claimed it. Derived from the Latin word
5:35
relige, which means to reread and diligently weigh what is
5:39
true. So Cicero pictured an upright
5:41
worshipper as a careful scholar, someone reading texts, studying
5:45
and thinking really hard. Which sounds incredibly noble to
5:48
modern ears. I mean, we love the idea of the
5:51
careful intellectual seeker. It definitely flatters our
5:54
intellect. It makes religion sound like a
5:55
high minded academic pursuit. But Calvin dismisses Cicero's
5:59
definition entirely. He just throws it out.
6:02
He calls it forced and far fetched.
6:03
Yeah, he argues that Cicero completely misses the actual
6:06
engine driving human spirituality.
6:08
Instead of this noble scholarly pursuit, the author proposes
6:12
that true religion is actually opposed to something he calls
6:15
giddy license. Giddy license.
6:18
That phrase is brilliant. It perfectly captures the
6:21
frantic, chaotic nature of the human mind.
6:23
It. Really does.
6:24
The argument is that the greater part of the world thoughtlessly
6:27
seizes upon whatever is at hand, the.
6:29
Human mind flits hit her, and thither we are easily
6:32
distracted, easily entertained, and drawn to novelty.
6:36
We are like spiritual Magpies just grabbing at anything shiny.
6:39
So true, and that is why pure religion must keep itself within
6:43
proper limits. It has to stand on a firm
6:45
fitting. It has to actively refuse
6:47
participation in that giddy license.
6:50
Superstition, on the other hand, is defined by its excess.
6:53
Right, it is not content with the prescribed manner in order.
6:56
Instead, it heaps up a needless mass of inanities A.
6:59
Needless mass of inanities. I love that translation.
7:03
I keep returning to that scientific scale analogy.
7:06
Think of pure religion as that highly calibrated instrument,
7:09
streamlined and doing precisely what it is designed to do.
7:12
OK. I am with you.
7:14
And superstition is like taking that perfect scale and taping
7:18
random gadgets, flashing lights, bells and extra dials onto it.
7:22
You might think you are making it better or more impressive.
7:25
Yeah, but eventually it breaks under its own weight.
7:27
The core function is destroyed by the additions.
7:30
Because the additions do not enhance the worship, they
7:32
suffocate it. Absolutely.
7:35
And because human nature is so prone to this giddy license, so
7:39
eager to tape on those extra bells and whistles, the author
7:42
explains that God provides A prescribed rule.
7:46
He defines lawful worship to hold mankind in obedience, and
7:50
he actually calls this prescribed rule a bridle.
7:53
A bridle imposed upon men to prevent them from sinking into
7:56
vicious rites. Now wait a minute.
7:58
What is the issue? Well, in modern times, we view
8:01
any sort of rule or restriction in spirituality as a negative.
8:04
We see it as a limitation on our personal expression.
8:07
Oh, for sure. So why should a worshipper
8:09
accept a bridle? Doesn't that crush the organic,
8:11
spontaneous nature of devotion? You have to look at the purpose
8:14
of the bridle. I mean, a rider does not use a
8:16
bridle to torture the horse. So obviously not.
8:18
The rider uses it to steer the horse away from galloping off a
8:21
Cliff. The law regarding worship is not
8:24
framed here as a punitive measure.
8:25
So it is a protective restraint. Precisely.
8:28
The bridle protects the horse from its own destructive
8:31
instincts in the same way the prescribed boundaries of worship
8:34
protect the human mind from its tendency toward giddy license.
8:38
So if humans naturally desire more in their worship, you know,
8:42
more rituals, more tangible objects, more visual aids, why
8:46
does the author view this more as a severe threat that despoils
8:50
the divine honor? Why can't we just have the
8:52
highest being plus a few extra helpful traditions?
8:56
Yeah, why is that such a problem?
8:57
Because that desire for more stems from a fundamental deep
9:01
seated discomfort with the invisible and the strictly
9:03
regulated. The highest being is invisible,
9:06
infinite, and utterly beyond our complete comprehension.
9:09
And that creates a massive sense of vulnerability in the
9:11
worshipper. We hate feeling like we are not
9:14
in control. We want handles on our deities.
9:16
We want something we can grab on to.
9:18
That is it. To cope with that vulnerability,
9:21
people invent tangible inanities.
9:24
They create rituals, objects and the lesser figures they can see,
9:28
touch and understand. They do this to manufacture a
9:31
sense of control over the divine interaction.
9:34
But the text argues this coping mechanism is actually an act of
9:38
theft. Unless everything proper to his
9:41
divinity resides in the one God, he is despoiled of his honor.
9:44
And the reverencing of him is profaned.
9:47
You cannot add to the perfection of the calibration without
9:50
ruining it entirely. Which brings us to a really
9:53
fascinating observation about how this theft actually
9:56
happened. Because it almost never happens
9:58
out in the open. No, Superstition relies on
10:00
subtleties. Calvin writes that we must
10:02
carefully attend to the subtleties with which
10:04
superstition to sports itself. It does not outright desert the
10:08
highest God. It does not look at the Creator
10:10
and say you do not exist. We are replacing you.
10:13
That would be way too obvious. A total sudden replacement would
10:16
shock the human conscience. The conscience would likely
10:18
reject it immediately. So superstition operates through
10:21
a gradual crowding of the divine space.
10:24
It concedes the supreme place to him.
10:27
It gives him the top title. But then it surrounds him with a
10:30
throng of lesser gods, and it parcels out his functions among
10:34
them. The phrasing here is just
10:35
brutal, he says. This practice stealthily and
10:39
craftily rens his glory asunder. Rent asunder.
10:43
Torn to pieces. It implies that divine glory is
10:46
a finite, indivisible resource. You cannot slice it up like a
10:49
pie, hand it out to a throng of helpers, and expect the original
10:53
source to remain whole. Parceling out those functions is
10:56
equivalent to tearing the divine majesty to shreds.
10:59
And the text provides historical receipts for this phenomenon.
11:03
He points to antiquity, noting how both Jews and heathens would
11:06
put a vast throng of gods under the father and ruler of the
11:08
gods. So they maintained A hierarchy.
11:10
There was a top God, but underneath there was a whole
11:13
bureaucracy of deities sharing the government of heaven and
11:16
earth. Yeah, and then he brings it
11:17
closer to his own era, pointing out how departed Saints were
11:20
elevated into a Co partnership with God.
11:22
They were honored, invoked, and praised in his dead.
11:25
So let's analyze the psychology of this stealthy idolatry.
11:30
I actually brought up a corporate analogy in my notes.
11:33
It feels like an administrative approach to the divine.
11:36
Oh, I like that. How so?
11:38
Well, it is exactly like a massive corporation where
11:41
everyone acknowledges the CEO exists, the CEO's name is on the
11:45
building, the CEO holds the ultimate title.
11:48
OK, sure, but nobody actually talks to the CEO.
11:51
All the actual loyalty, the daily request, the problem
11:54
solving, the praise for a good quarter, all of that goes to the
11:58
regional managers and the department heads.
12:00
Wow. Yes, and over time the CE OS
12:03
role is functionally extinguished.
12:06
The CEO becomes a ghost in their own company.
12:08
The author describes the result of this process as leaving us
12:11
with a sterile notion of supreme authority.
12:14
The CEO has the title, but the regional managers have the
12:17
relationship. The true majesty is suppressed
12:19
and extinguished by the trappings of these various
12:22
middle managers. Sterile notion is a devastating
12:25
phrase. The Supreme Being becomes
12:27
nothing more than a theoretical concept, while all the actual
12:30
warmth, devotion and daily interaction are directed
12:33
elsewhere. But let me play devil's advocate
12:35
again. We are tiny, flawed creatures.
12:40
The highest being is terrifyingly infinite.
12:43
Isn't it just a natural human desire to want a relatable
12:46
mediator? We want someone who understands
12:48
our specific petty problems. Yeah, people crave that
12:52
connection. So why is the text so incredibly
12:55
strict about treating this middle management structure as
12:58
an absolute abomination rather than just a naive, harmless
13:02
mistake? Why is God so bothered by us
13:05
talking to the regional managers?
13:06
To answer that, you have to look at the nature of the highest
13:08
being as described in the text. The author references Exodus,
13:12
noting that God declares himself a jealous God and a severe
13:15
avenger if he's confused with any fictitious God.
13:19
Human jealousy is usually petty, rooted in insecurity.
13:22
Right. But divine jealousy is rooted in
13:24
absolute objective truth. It implies an exclusive
13:27
righteous right to the reverence that is being siphoned off.
13:30
So it is less like a jealous high schooler and more like a
13:32
rightful king watching his subjects pay taxes to a random
13:36
Duke. Absolutely.
13:37
If a husband demands exclusive devotion from his wife, we do
13:39
not call that petty. No, we call that the correct
13:42
boundary of the marriage relationship.
13:44
In the same way, the highest being demands exclusive
13:47
reverence. When the throng of lesser gods
13:50
or departures Saints siphon off the daily prayers, the reliance
13:54
and the trust, they are stealing what rightfully and exclusively
13:58
belongs to the Creator. The regional managers are
14:01
stealing the loyalty that belongs solely to the owner of
14:04
the company. And because humans are so
14:06
brilliant at justifying their own behavior, we do not just
14:08
naturally drift into this error and admit we are wrong.
14:11
Oh no. We write thick theological books
14:14
defending the drift. We invent massive intellectual
14:16
justifications for it. Which?
14:18
Brings us to one of the most intellectually entertaining
14:21
parts of this text. The linguistic loophole, yes.
14:24
This is where the author's background as a legal scholar
14:26
truly shines. He addresses the distinction
14:29
theologians invented between two specific words, latria and
14:33
dulia. He argues this distinction was
14:35
completely fabricated to transfer divine honors to angels
14:38
and the dead with impunity. It was essentially A theological
14:42
get out of jail free card. The proponents of this system
14:45
claimed they were doing nothing wrong.
14:47
They argued they kept Latria strictly for the highest God, so
14:51
his honor remained completely unimpaired.
14:53
But in practice, they indiscriminately worshipped both
14:56
God and the Saints. They wriggle out of the
14:58
accusation of idolatry by throwing vocabulary at the
15:02
problem. So breakdown the linguistics for
15:04
us, because the logical trap sprung here is masterful.
15:08
The linguistic breakdown is actually quite simple.
15:10
The Greek word latria equates to the Latin word cultus, which
15:14
translates to honor or worship. OK, Honor the Greek word.
15:18
Gulaya properly signifies the Latin word servatus, which
15:23
translates to servitude or enslavement.
15:25
OK, so the loophole. Defenders are saying, look, we
15:28
give latria honor only to God. We only give dulia, servitude to
15:32
the Saints. 2 totally different words, two totally different
15:35
actions. We are innocent.
15:37
But Calvin says. Let's accept your unmarrying
15:39
definition of these two words for a moment.
15:41
Latria is honor, Dulia is servitude.
15:45
OK, following the. Logic.
15:46
He then states a. Universal accepted truth.
15:49
No one doubts that it is a greater, more extreme subjection
15:52
to be enslaved to someone than simply to honor them.
15:55
Wow, yeah. It is very hard to be a slave to
15:58
someone, but it is quite easy to honor someone you are not
16:01
enslaved to, right? It is greater to.
16:03
Be enslaved than to honor. Therefore, by their own strictly
16:07
defined vocabulary, these loophole defenders are assigning
16:10
the Saints the greater thing servitude and leaving the
16:13
highest God with the lesser thing, honor.
16:15
That is amazing. It is entirely unequal dealing,
16:18
he points out. They.
16:18
Are literally giving the creatures a heavier, more
16:21
demanding form of devotion than they are giving the creator, all
16:25
while trying. To use these words to prove they
16:27
are respecting the creator's supremacy, the logic folds.
16:29
In on itself, he does not just call the distinction wrong.
16:33
No, he proves. It logically backward.
16:35
By their own definitions, they are elevating the Saints above
16:38
the divine, he concludes. This old distinction is not only
16:41
inept, but entirely worthless. And, he adds A vital principle
16:45
here. The thing itself, not the word,
16:48
is in question that. Phrase is a definitive absolute
16:52
rejection of using semantics to mask reality, the relabeling.
16:57
Of an action does not alter its fundamental nature this
17:00
principle applies far beyond 16th century theology it applies
17:04
to modern. Ethics, law and how we justify
17:07
our own behaviors to ourselves today, it makes me think.
17:09
Of a corrupt lawyer inventing 2 distinct words for stealing.
17:13
Oh yeah, like. He goes before a judge and
17:16
argues his client did not commit theft Type A, which is illegal,
17:21
right? But.
17:21
Rather engaged in resource reallocation type B, which she
17:24
claims is completely fine and the judge.
17:26
Looks at the empty bank vault and says the thing itself, not
17:29
the word, is in question. The money is gone.
17:32
You stole it precisely. And that raises a question about
17:35
the state of mind of the people using this loophole.
17:38
Are they? Maliciously cheating the system?
17:40
Or are they genuinely deceived by their own vocabulary?
17:43
The text. Implies A mixture.
17:44
The theologians crafting the distinctions might be craftily
17:47
wriggling out of the accusations, but the common?
17:50
Worshipper is likely deceived by the trappings.
17:53
They're handed to vocabulary that permits them to indulge
17:55
their natural inclination toward the giddy license.
17:58
We discussed earlier the vocabulary.
18:00
Gives them permission to multiply their devotions without
18:03
feeling the sting of a guilty conscience.
18:05
They get the comfort. Of the middle managers, the
18:08
tangible statues, the specific patrons for specific problems.
18:12
And they get to tell. Themselves, they are still
18:14
perfectly obedient to the highest being, but the text?
18:17
Refuses to let that stand on philosophical grounds alone.
18:21
He moves from logical traps to hard, indisputable evidence he
18:25
brings. Forward 4 very specific
18:27
scriptural precedents to prove his point, definitively
18:31
demonstrating that the biblical record does not care about
18:34
linguistic loopholes. Let's look at the.
18:35
First piece of evidence he comes from the Apostle Paul writing to
18:39
the Galatians, Paul reminds. Them of what they were like
18:41
before they knew the true God, he says they exhibited dulia.
18:45
There's that word again, servitude toward beings that by
18:48
nature were no gods. And the author?
18:50
Highlights a crucial detail here.
18:53
Paul does not call their past idolatry latria.
18:56
He uses their lesser word dulia, but does that.
19:00
Make their superstition excusable?
19:02
Absolutely not. By labeling that perverse
19:04
superstition dulia, Paul condemns it just as harshly as
19:08
if he had used the word latria, the scriptural.
19:10
Record annihilates the distinction completely.
19:12
The second example is even more stark.
19:14
It looks at the interaction between Christ and Satan in the
19:17
wilderness. Satan tries.
19:19
To tempt Christ. And what does he ask for?
19:21
He does not ask for full blown latria.
19:23
No he does not. Ask Christ to denounce the
19:25
Father and declare Satan the supreme creator of the universe.
19:28
He just asks. For a reverent kneeling, just a
19:31
physical gesture, a simple reverential.
19:33
Thou but Christ rebuffs him with a massive shield.
19:36
He quotes the command, You shall worship the Lord your God.
19:39
Christ treats. The request for a simple
19:41
kneeling as a demand for supreme worship, he completely.
19:44
Rejects the idea that you can separate physical religious
19:48
reverence from supreme devotion. No, I want to challenge this.
19:51
With a third example, because this one involves a good guy
19:53
making mistake. OK, let's hear it.
19:55
It is John and the Angel from the Book of Revelation.
19:59
John is overwhelmed by the visions he is seeing, and he
20:02
falls on his knees before the Angel and the Angel.
20:04
Immediately rebukes him Wait, John was an.
20:06
Apostle. He literally wrote parts of the
20:08
New Testament. He knew who God was, and he knew
20:11
the Angel was just a messenger, right?
20:13
His intent? Was not idolatry.
20:14
He wasn't trying to. Replace God.
20:17
So why is this condemned so harshly?
20:19
Because. Intent does not mitigate the
20:21
offense, the text states, A profound, unyielding rule here.
20:25
Any reverential act that has been joined with religion cannot
20:29
but savor of something divine. So, John.
20:31
Could not have knelt to the Angel without detracting from
20:34
God's glory, regardless of what was in his heart at that moment.
20:37
It's savors of. Something divine.
20:40
There is an intrinsic, unbreakable quality to religious
20:43
bowing or kneeling. You cannot safely.
20:45
Separate the physical action from supreme worship, and that
20:48
is backed. Up by the 4th example which is
20:50
very similar. Cornelius and the Apostle Peter
20:53
in the book of Acts. Cornelius.
20:54
Is described as a man who had advanced in godliness.
20:58
He knew to pay God alone the highest reverence.
21:00
Yet when Peter arrives at his house, Cornelius prostrates
21:04
himself again. The text assumes Cornelius did
21:08
not intend to worship Peter in place of God, but Peter.
21:10
Practically jumps out of his skin and earnestly forbids him
21:14
to do it, saying stand up. I too am a man across all these.
21:18
Examples the Galatians, Christ and Satan, John and the Angel
21:22
Cornelius and Peter. We see a common thread.
21:25
The boundary is absolute, the physical.
21:27
Act of religious reverence crosses a strict line,
21:31
regardless of the vocabulary used and regardless of the
21:34
internal intent of the worshipper.
21:36
This forces. Us to reconsider how we view our
21:38
actions. Modern society places a massive
21:41
emphasis on intent. If you didn't mean to do harm,
21:44
we generally excuse the action. But the theological.
21:47
Framework here argues that the divine boundaries objective.
21:49
It is just outside of your personal feelings, your
21:51
vocabulary, or your intentions. I was actually trying to.
21:54
Think of a way to visualize this objective boundary.
21:56
Oh yeah, What? Did you come up with?
21:57
Well, think about. A highly secured VIP section at
22:00
some exclusive event, right? Like an award.
22:02
Show or something? Yeah, and there.
22:04
Is a velvet rope sectioning off a highly secure area OK?
22:08
I am. Picturing it and the security.
22:09
Guards have absolute orders, nobody crosses the rope, period.
22:14
0 exceptions, so imagine. You are standing near the rope
22:17
and your shoelace comes united. Uh oh.
22:20
I see where this is going. Yeah, you.
22:22
Accidentally Step 1 foot over the velvet rope just to balance
22:25
yourself while you tie your shoe you have.
22:27
Absolutely no intention of storming the VIP area.
22:30
None at all. You.
22:31
Just wanted to tie your shoe, but what happens?
22:33
Security tackles. You absolutely, because.
22:35
Security treats it as a full breach.
22:38
Your internal intention literally does not matter to the
22:41
objective boundary, the physical boundary.
22:43
Was crossed and the alarm was tripped.
22:46
The argument here is that divine honor is secured in the exact
22:49
same way, stepping over the. Line, even with a pure intent to
22:53
just show a little respect to an Angel or a St. trips the alarm
22:57
of divine jealousy. That is a very.
22:59
Fitting way to understand the strictness we are seeing.
23:02
However, the author does make one concession he acknowledges.
23:06
That men are sometimes worshipped or honored in a civil
23:08
sense, bowing to a king or saluting a general is
23:12
permissible, but he draws a. Razor thin distinction.
23:16
He argues that as soon as reverence has been joined with
23:18
religion, it carries the profanation of divine honor
23:22
along with it. But that feels.
23:24
Impossible to manage. Where is that line drawn?
23:26
How do we? Know when an act of respect
23:29
shifts from civil honor to religious reverence.
23:32
If I bow to a king it's fine, but if I bow to an Angel it's
23:35
sacrilege it feels like. We are completely incapable of
23:39
managing that distinction without messing it up.
23:41
You have hit on. The exact reason for the
23:43
strictness Calvin analyzes Peter's reaction to Cornelius
23:47
and concludes that Peter reacted so strongly because men never so
23:51
articulately discern between the honoring of God and of creatures
23:55
without. Indiscriminately transferring to
23:57
the creature what belong to God. We are incapable of keeping the
24:00
categories clean the human mind. Is a leaky instrument precisely.
24:04
We cannot accurately separate civil respect from religious
24:07
devotion when spiritual matters are involved, because we cannot.
24:10
Be trusted to walk the tightrope.
24:12
The rule is an absolute ban on the practice.
24:15
It is safer. To forbid all religious bowing
24:17
to creatures than to trust human beings to perfectly manage their
24:21
internal intentions, we will always.
24:23
Slip. We will always let the devotion
24:25
leak over to the creature. If we wish to have one God, we
24:28
must remember that we must not fluck away even a particle of
24:32
His glory and because. Humans constantly blur this
24:35
line. History shows a clear,
24:37
undeniable downward spiral. The text.
24:40
Anchors this final argument with a quote from the Prophet
24:42
Zechariah, chapter 14, verse 9. It asserts that God will be 1
24:47
and his name will be 1, Calvin notes.
24:49
That this phrasing his name will be 1 is specifically designed to
24:53
ensure that he has nothing in common with idols the name the.
24:56
Identity The honor must be completely singular and unified
24:59
whenever any. Observances of piety are
25:01
transferred to someone other than the soul God.
25:03
It is sacrilege, period. And then?
25:06
He traces the historical progression of this sacrilege.
25:09
He maps out the downward spiral of how humanity loses its grip
25:12
on pure religion. It is a three.
25:14
Step Progression. The first step involves the
25:17
natural world, superstition, first contrived divine honors
25:22
for the sun, the stars, and idols.
25:24
Which makes sense. From a primitive perspective,
25:26
you look up, you see the massive burning sun providing heat and
25:30
light and the human. Mind lacking that frame footing,
25:33
decides to worship it. We take the awe meant for the
25:36
Creator and attach it to the most impressive parts of the
25:39
creation. But the spiral.
25:40
Does not stop with nature worship.
25:43
The second step is driven by what the text identifies as
25:46
ambition. He writes that.
25:48
Ambition, followed which by adorning mortals with the spoils
25:51
of God, dared profane everything Sacred adorning.
25:55
Mortals with the spoils of God. Let's stop and look at that.
25:57
Visual spoils are the. Loot taken in a war.
25:59
They are stolen goods. This implies.
26:01
A massive cosmic theft. It is an.
26:03
Incredibly vivid, disturbing image.
26:06
We take the attributes of the divine, flawless wisdom,
26:09
absolute power, the right to demand total loyalty.
26:12
We steal those. Attributes those spoils, and we
26:14
dress up human beings. In them we put the royal.
26:17
Robes of the Creator onto the shoulders of mortal men.
26:20
We see this in the ancient world with Pharaohs and Roman emperors
26:24
declaring themselves gods. Ambition.
26:26
Drives mortals to demand the spoils of God and giddy license.
26:30
Drives the crowds to gladly hand those spoils over and that.
26:34
Leads to the third and final step of the downward spiral
26:37
while maintaining. The principle of worshipping a
26:39
supreme Being so they haven't entirely forgotten the idea of a
26:43
top God. It became a common custom to
26:46
offer sacrifices indiscriminately to tutelary
26:49
divinities, lesser gods or dead heroes.
26:52
The system. Completely fractures, the glory
26:54
is shattered into a million pieces.
26:56
You have a God for the river, a patron St. for safe travel, a
26:59
dead hero you pray to for victory, and battle the
27:02
devotion. Is sprayed everywhere, the text
27:04
concludes. With a sobering summary of human
27:06
nature, we are so inclined to lapse into this error that what
27:10
God rigorously obviously reserves for himself alone, we
27:13
distribute among a great throng. I kept coming.
27:16
Back to the physics of water. When thinking about this
27:18
inclination, the physics of. Water.
27:20
Yeah, think about water. Flowing down a mountain, it
27:23
always seeks the path of least resistance.
27:25
Oh sure, if it hits a rock, it splits, it finds every crack,
27:29
every crevice, and it spreads out as widely as possible,
27:32
maintaining the. Pressure of directing all
27:35
devotion to one invisible infinite source is like trying
27:39
to force all that water through a single perfectly straight pipe
27:43
it requires. Constant pressure and unyielding
27:46
boundaries. But human nature is like a pipe
27:49
with 1000 tiny holes in it. We naturally.
27:51
Leak our devotion. Scatters and finds the path of
27:54
least resistance flowing toward things we can see, things we can
27:57
touch, and lesser mediators we feel we can control the path of
28:00
least. Resistance is to distribute the
28:02
glory. To maintain the single stream
28:05
requires the bridle we discussed earlier.
28:07
It requires the. Strict rule of the law to patch
28:09
the holes and keep the devotion directed upward.
28:12
So if humans. Are this hardwired to distribute
28:14
devotion among a great throng? Does this mean pure religion is
28:18
essentially an unnatural state for humans?
28:21
Does it require? Constant vigilant maintenance to
28:23
prevent a leak into the. Logic of this framework, Yes,
28:27
pure religion is counter to our fallen nature, our default.
28:31
Setting is superstition, giddy license, and the multiplication
28:35
of mediators the fame. Footing of pure godliness
28:39
requires an external rule to continually correct our drift.
28:43
Left to our own devices, we will always build a pantheon.
28:46
And we really. Need to connect this ancient
28:48
progression to you, the modern listener, because it is easy.
28:52
To read these historical arguments and think, well, I do
28:54
not offer literal sacrifices to tutelary divinities or Greek
28:58
heroes. I'm totally clear of this
29:00
downward spiral. But the psychological.
29:02
Impulse remains identical. The mechanism of stealing the
29:05
spoils of the highest ideal and placing them on lesser things is
29:09
highly active. Today we have just.
29:10
Changed the vocabulary and the wardrobe of our idols.
29:13
Oh, absolutely. We take the absolute trust, the
29:16
demand for salvation, and the ultimate hope that belong only
29:19
to the divine, and we place those spoils on modern systems
29:22
we place them on. Politicians thinking if my
29:24
candidate it wins, everything will be saved.
29:26
We place those. Spoils on celebrities treating
29:29
their opinions as flawless wisdom, we place them on
29:33
economic systems or ideologies. We are still.
29:36
Dressing up mortals and human inventions in the stolen robes
29:39
of the highest being. We are still.
29:41
Crowding the divine space. We are still deeply
29:43
uncomfortable with the invisible, and we still
29:46
desperately want tangible mediators to guarantee our
29:49
safety and success. The Ancient.
29:51
Heathen throng of lesser gods has simply been replaced by a
29:54
modern throng of distractions, ideologies, and human saviors.
29:58
It's the exact. Same air, just wearing modern
30:01
clothes. The laboratory scale is still
30:03
covered in our junk. We are still.
30:05
Throwing our car keys on it and ruining the calibration.
30:08
Which brings us back. To the absolute necessity of the
30:10
boundaries outlined in the text. The only cure for the cluttered
30:13
scale is strict adherence to the prescribed rule.
30:16
God will be. One and his name will be 1.
30:20
Nothing can be held in common with idols, ancient or modern.
30:23
Let's recap. The core takeaways for you, the
30:25
listener, because we have covered massive ground today.
30:29
We started by. Looking at how pure religion
30:31
demands strict boundaries and absolutely rejects the giddy
30:35
license of the human mind, we saw how.
30:37
Human nature tries to suddenly crowd the divine by inventing a
30:42
middleman management structure of lesser entities to avoid the
30:45
terror of dealing directly with the infinite we examine.
30:49
The linguistic loopholes, specifically the fabricated
30:51
distinction between latria and dulia and.
30:54
Watch the logic dismantle the idea that you can give greater
30:58
servitude to a creature while claiming to reserve supreme
31:01
honor for the creator we walk through.
31:03
The scriptural precedents. The Galatians.
31:06
Christ in the wilderness, John and the Angel Cornelius and
31:10
Peter proving that the. Physical act of religious
31:12
reverence cannot be safely applied to creatures, regardless
31:15
of how pure your internal intent might be.
31:18
And finally. We trace the historic downward
31:20
spiral, showing our severe human inclination to take the spoils
31:23
of God and parcel out his glory among a vast, chaotic throng.
31:27
It is a. Rigorous, demanding framework,
31:29
but it offers incredible clarity on the mechanics of human
31:32
devotion as we close. I want to leave you with one
31:34
final thread to pull. The arguments we've examined
31:37
mentioned that as soon as religion is joined with an act
31:40
of reverence, it carries the profanation of divine honor, if
31:44
misdirected, even a well. Intentioned stumble crosses the
31:48
line this raises. A highly practical question for
31:50
your own life, even outside of strict theology.
31:54
What are the subtle ways you might be taking the spoils meant
31:57
for your highest ideals or principles and distributing them
32:01
among a throng of lesser distractions?
32:03
Where are you? Letting your devotion leak,
32:05
completely unaware of the sacrilege it is incredibly.
32:08
Easy to walk into the laboratory of your own life and start
32:11
tossing your junk onto the calibrated scale without even
32:14
thinking about it. You have to keep the table
32:16
clean. Thank you so much.
32:18
For joining us for this deep dive into the historical logic
32:21
of worship, areciate you sending your time with us, Kee the scale
32:24
clean and we will catch you on the next one.