Amen, HarleyD!
I for one do not believe the Lord just send me a VHS tape and a vinyl home-study-course mat, leaving me and my "free will" to learn to follow along...
Posted on 03/16/2006 7:42:26 AM PST by Gamecock
You wrote:
"***I am a serious contender for the Faith.***"
"***I am an educated scholar.*** "
"***Calvin was a homo.***"
"Yep, that's a hat trick."
Except I never wrote the last comment.
"By the way, are you a Scientologist?"
No.
You wrote:
"Do you think your comments are objective as a "historian"?"
Can you show otherwise?
"Could you argue Calvin's position?"
Yes, I can argue Calvin's position on the killing of Servetus and even his sodomy conviction (if he had one) if need be. But why would I?
"Nope, I'm only making a point that you're judging someone who has potentially led thousands to Christ over the centuries and defending someone who the Universial Unitarian church reveres."
Incorrect. I never once defended Servetus. Never. You can not show one time ever, anywhere, that I did. Why would you make up something like that?
"You wash your hands of criticism of the Catholic Church while trying to cast stones at others."
Since I am discussing Calvin, criticism of the Catholic Church is simply irrelevant. I see no reason to discuss any real or imagined wrong doings of Catholics or the Catholic Church when I am talking about Calvin.
"While the scriptures state we are to judge others with their conduct in church, the Bible also warns us about the log that is in our own eyes."
True, but that doesn't change what Calvin did and there is no reason why I can't discuss it.
"LOL!!! Everything is "irrelevant" where it doesn't fit your paradigm."
No, but just about everything not about Calvin is irrelevant in a discussion about Calvin.
"As far as Pierre Cavard, as you've pointed out I know very little of the gentleman."
That's all you can say after claiming he had an agenda and then criticizing me for supposedly overlooking the beam in my eye when discussing Calvin? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
"I will say that those who know me on this site who have asked me if I have read document X knows that I will go out and read document X if I have the time and if I can find it on the Internet. I've searched for Pierre Cavard's works but I haven't found them. According to all that I can find, all I can tell is that he wrote in French and I don't read French."
So you really do know nothing about him and yet you said he had an agenda - thereby attacking his credibility without knowing the slightest thing about him or his work.
Again, doesn't that make you a hypocrite.
"I would disagree. The Internet is a most useful tool because not only can I read the material but I can selectively search for points in a book and post the material here in repudiation to your points."
And yet it has not made you familiar with important authors in the field.
"You want me to comment on an obscured author who has never been translated into English?"
Then why criticize him?
"I can't verify or validate anything Cavard states."
Then why accuse him of having an agenda.
"That doesn't make him wrong or right. I can't verify the gentleman so the burden of proof is on you that he's correct."
No, actually it isn't. He was an expert on Servetus and Calvin. You aren't. The burden is on you alone.
"Wasn't it Reagan that stated, "Trust but verify."? While there is very little information on Pierre Cavard it is save to assume that he is 1) a die hard Catholic, 2) a socialist, or 3) both. It's probably #2 or #3."
You are so desperate that you have to accuse him of being a socialist? Of being a die hard Catholic - oh, the horror! And what he was in relation to what we are talking about was a historian of the city of Vienne.
"I'm not impress with your source."
Since you already admitted knowing nothing at all about it does it matter what your "impression" of it is? And aren't you judging something you don't know while you attacked me for judging what I did know and have sources for?
"Tell that to John Huss. Some people might believe the BS (excuse me ladies). I'm not one of those."
No, instead you just contradict yourself left and right and make no sense.
"Oh, so now you're saying the folks of Geneva had no rights in enacting their own laws?"
It wasn't there own law. It was imperial law. Calvin kept it, but it wasn't his law even if it was essentially his law code. Will you ever get these things right?
"This comment coming from a "Middle Ages" historian???"
You can't even get that right can you?
"Please.I'm not naive enough to believe the Catholic Church didn't weigh considerable influence over the leaders."
It did, and sometimes still does. That doesn't change the fact that legal procdure was followed. The Genevans had no right to try someone who committed no crime in their jurisdiction.
"Just wave around the "excommunication flag" and those not enlighten will tow the line."
So excommunication is only observed by those who are unenlightened?
"BTW-I frequently embarrass myself. Why should this be anything different?"
Apparently it isn't.
"I don't need to put together an "argument". Nothing you have stated has anything remotely to do with scripture."
Neither does the thread opener. This is not a thread about scripture. Learn to read. Did you even know that the thread wasn't about scripture.
"You are simply trying to assassinate the character of a person who has led thousand of people to Christ and personally established over 250 churches."
I can't really assassinate what is already mortally wounded.
"And just like Pierre Cavard, you are supporting a person who denied the Trinity to his dying day and is considered the father of the Universal Unitarian Church."
Nope. Being honest about Calvin in no way supports Servetus. Cavard also did not support Servetus.
"It's typical of Arminians these days to embrace all sorts of weird beliefs and rally against the truth of the gospel. If this makes you comfortable then have at it. Personally I think it is a rather untenable position."
Untenable? You mean like attacking me for being judgmental while attacking an author you've never read?
You wrote:
“Dear Vladimir: The difficulty I have with your postings is simple: You use circular reasoning, which is a mark of insincerity and shallowness. For example: You lead with you conclusion: "Calvin is a heretic".”
Incorrect. That was not part of my first post here in this thread. I, therefore, did not lead with my conclusion. Also, that was not my conclusion. That is merely a fact along the way.
My first post was #8: “So posting a thread drawing on Foxe's notoriously biased Book of Martyrs is a response to a rather well balanced article written D.L.? How does that work exactly?”
That was the entire post. There was no mention of Calvin in that post at all. I never mentioned Calvin until post #200 !
“You then proceed to use this conclusion as the basis of everything that follows; but you never show us exactly: WHAT IS THE HERESY?”
Since my “lead” nor my “conclusion” was that Calvin was a heretic there was no need. The issue was Calvin’s actions and bahaviors. Look at post #200 where I dealt with Calvin FOR THE FIRST TIME. You’ll see it was ENTIRELY his actions and behavior. I have been consistently focused on that all along.
“Calvin is a heretic; Ergo: Calvinism is heretical. Ergo: Calvin is a heretic. (This is circular nonsense).”
And I never presented any such syllogism.
“Please show us the heresy! This is what I mean by not debating openly the content of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin.”
Frankly what you mean about an issue other than the one I am discussing is completely unimportant to me. I am talking about Calvin’s actions and behavior.
“What, exactly, makes you conclude that "Calvin is a heretic"?”
It is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am talking about Calvin’s actions and behavior. I have no interest in discussing Calvin’s heresies.
“Which doctrines that John Calvin clarified are you concluding are "heretical"? And by what qualifications do you come to this understanding?”
Again, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am talking about Calvin’s actions and behavior – as I have pointed out numerous times. Calvin’s heresies are simply irrelevant to that discussion as far as I can see. Can you see a direct connection between his heresies and his treatment of Servetus?
“This is what an educated scholar must do, and you avoid doing it.”
Wrong. The issue is Calvin’s actions and his behavior. It is not his doctrinal beliefs. Since I first posted about Calvin’s actions in post #200 I have stayed focused on the actions and behavior of Calvin. That is the issue. Don’t like it? Too bad. Deal with it.
“Instead you attack the man John Calvin with rumors and slanderous accusations, and think you have done a good job of analysis.”
Incorrect. I already have shown that I know the sources and use them properly in regard to Servetus and none of the Protestants here do. At least one Protestant has already admitted being rather ignorant about a source and did his best to dismiss the author out of hand without knowing anything about him. Also, the story about Calvin’s sodomy conviction is clearly more than “slanderous accusations” or “rumors” or else it would not have supporting documents found in the Noyon archive while Calvin was still alive!
“If you can't show us the "heretical doctrines" and debate them openly, then you are not what you represent yourself to be: An informed historian.”
Nonsense. I am talking about Calvin’s actions and behavior. Those are the issues. Debate those or not, but don’t pretend that I have to debate something that I have never even brought up in any detail whatsoever (i. e. Calvin’s heretical teachings) when over the last 120 posts I have been focused on Calvin’s actions and behavior. Don’t like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Are you going to cry because I won’t do what you want? Why are you so afraid to deal with the issue at hand?
“Please reply, when you find the time. We "Calvinists" await.”
You’ve got your reply.
You wrote: "Sir, you are babbling."
No, I am not. I said all that I needed to say and said it concisely enough.
"Please let me know what Reformed doctrines you happen to disagree with and perhaps we can discuss those."
I am interested only in discussing Calvin's actions and behavior.
"As far as your opinions and innuendos of Calvin, as you've stated many, many times, they're irrelevant."
Not to his actions and his behavior they are not and they are not mere innuendos either.
The thread is about Protestants that unjustly suffered at the hand of Catholics. Why would it be irrelevant then to bring up the victims of Calvin, and his possible sexual crime, of which substantial evidence exists?
Why? There is no documented proof of sodomy. The only place that I can find these charges are with the Unitarian websites; those who hate Calvin and love Servetus. And even there they'll admit on the flimsiest of evidence, it is rumored that he fell in love while in seminary with a priest.
Even if true this only shows the homosexual problems and Catholic priests praying (if I may use that term) on younger individuals is not limited to today's environment but has a historic track record within the Catholic Church. What are you guys doing to clean up 500 years of abuse? Passing edicts that says not to do it?
And, yes, if your going to scrutinize Calvin's behavior let's look at the Popes' behavior as well which is just as relevant since they hold the keys to the Kingdom. As a historian I would be greatly interested in hearing your historical analysis of Sex Throughout the Priesthood and Ages. Shall we talk about the love lives of the Popes; the bastard children they had and the illicit love lives they maintained all the while telling others that they should be chasten and passing edicts from Peter's Chair? That makes very fine reading.
See, Calvinists aren't shocked by unsaved people's behavior because we understand that the heart is wicked and man is depraved. Even if the charges are true, God who is rich in His mercies saved John Calvin out of convorting with homosexual priests. There is no sin that God cannot overcome. If true if anyone would have understood the depravity of man and what original sin is all about, it would be John Calvin and, btw, Augustine, the great Catholic Church father who lived a very rambuncious life himself, sleeping with married women before coming to the faith. This he documented himself. I'm sure you would join me in giving thanks that God was so merciful to spare these two great men of faith.
Fortunately for the Church of that time and unfortunately for Mr. Calvin, he could not form a class action lawsuit.
LOL. One of the few laughs from an Adam Sandler movie (although WATERBOY is a guilty pleasure.)
I would agree that Calvin's sexual depravity, if true, is as relevant as the like depravity of Catholic priests. I am primarily racting to OrthodoxPresbyterian's over the top reaction to the allegation earlier, and your assertion that it is not relevant.
I would caution though against creating a calumny of your own by morphing the accusation of sodomy into an allegation of victimhood of sodomy. Also, Vladimir did not dig it up from websites but from his professional activity as a historian.
Amen, HarleyD!
I for one do not believe the Lord just send me a VHS tape and a vinyl home-study-course mat, leaving me and my "free will" to learn to follow along...
Bullcrap. He just cut-and-pasted from the a website found by Google. (Look here.
95,000 hits? Are they all saying Calvin was a homo? He sure looks one.
You guys are a riot. This week John Calvin is accused of being gay and next week Martin Luther will be found to have been a Black Panther. Van Til was actually a cross-dressing Hungarian and Spurgeon was in AA.
The Counter Reformation never ended. When the truth doesn't work for you, lying and character assassination is the method of choice. You're the desperate sons of Torquemada, but your battle is already lost.
God had other plans for His church. The Reformation returned Scripture to the faithful even in the midst of callous, militant obstructionism.
Repent of your lies and read your Bible. Clean your own house, and stop slandering a man who towered above you even on his death bed.
I am not sure what OP posted as I'm extremely busy and only have a little time to scan these posts. The problem with your comment is that you do not recognize man's depravity. We do. We understand that man, if left to himself will degenerate into a hideous pile of mush.
God saves us out of this state. What Calvin or anyone else has done before Christ is of no consequence. God forgives all sin and changes our hearts. I am reminded of the Pharisees who stated the same thing about a man who they thought was a sinner.
You would like to think man is basically "good" and thus Calvin should have found it within himself the resources to walk away; just like Augustine should have said to himself to stop sleeping around with every married woman. Both of them realized that without God changing their hearts this was impossible.
I would caution though against creating a calumny of your own by morphing the accusation of sodomy into an allegation of victimhood of sodomy.
And how do you know Calvin wasn't a victim? There isn't any evidence one way or another. Your side is trying to make it sound like Calvin lured the priest in. It could have been the priest approached Calvin. Recent history supports my scenario.
There is no documentary evidence that Luther was a Black Panther. Or even a Pink Panther. (That contortionist episode in the cartoons was not, I repeat, not, referring to Luther). But there is some evidence that Calvin was a homosexual. For what it is worth, it was presented, as a part of the overall discussion of his character. Had Geneva not been proclaimed a model society by the Calvinists, and had the execution of Servetus not whitewashed as legitimate defense against invasion, it would not have been relevant.
The Counter Reformation never ended
Of course not. Has Reformation ended? The good new is that the Reformation is disintegrating into a half dosen servile government-approved denominations and thousands of independent snakehandler churches. As an entry-level Christian community for pagan Americans you probably do some good, too, and I applaud your numerical growth.
man who towered above you
That's the thing, I don't think Calvin towered all that much. Granted, I have no reason to really read him, but what you posted to me by Calvin I read and it was second rate. He may have his theories all lined up neatly, but he does not understand the scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.