Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ksen
Calvin makes some interesting commentsin sections 2 and 3 concerning "Latria" and "Dulia."

He does indeed.

In effect he is saying that service, "Dulia", is higher than worship, "Latria."

Let's examine this.

A distinction without a difference

A peculiar way to title a section wherein he goes on not only to note the difference, but to invert it. Very interesting.

But no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship.

No man? If it's so bloody obvious why the need to write a treatise on the subject? Interesting indeed. He protests too much.

For it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence.

Huh? Can someone explain this to me? Yes, i suppose a slave can "Serve" someone he does not revere, but this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a freely given religious attitude towards a person.

It is not at all clear to all men that "service" is higher than worship. Monica provided "Service" to Bill Clinton. Maybe he was her God.

It is of course, silly. The idea of worship and service are not mutually exclusive. One serves God by doing what He desires of us and this can be a way of worshipping Him. I can't imagine worship without service. Can you?

I'm not sure what Calvin thinks "worship" entails if it is lower than service, instead of including such.

It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?

Again with the sweeping generalizations. All men! Preach on to the choir, brother Calvin!

SD

7 posted on 07/03/2003 1:12:20 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: SoothingDave
From the chapter:

Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of God he says that they "did service unto them which by nature are no gods," (Gal. 4: 8.) Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of latria.

Paul condemns Dulia, and I guess by extension Hyperdulia, that isn't directed towards God.

8 posted on 07/03/2003 1:19:11 PM PDT by ksen (HHD;FRM - Entmoot or Bust!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson