Calvinism & other Frivolities

[Florestan]

While not considered a saint by the major Orthodox churches, they do not consider Augustine a heretic

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/bless_aug.aspx

Depends on what you mean by Orthodox. Please consider the following facts:

1. All --- and I mean all -- Greek Fathers of the Church, and most of the Latins, strongly disagreed with him on free will, the original sin, predestination and limited atonement. Actually, it is he who singlehandedly formulated and introduced the latter three concepts in common usage. But then again concocting and professing  novelties never heard nor spoken of before is the very definition of heresy.

2. He managed to get Pelagius, Caelestius and the Pelagians (three not automatically overlapping categories) condemned for heresy. His own doctrine, though, was never declared orthodox.

3. To this day, the magisterium of the Eastern Orthodox Church (a misnomer for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) teaches and upholds as orthodoxy things that are utterly opposed to what Augustine taught and upheld.

4. Last but not least, look into your own heart: what Augustine (and subsequently Calvin) taught and upheld is contrary to reason and justice. Can God be contrary to reason and justice?

[Christo]

Even better than this slightly more realistic portrait by Holbein the Younger:

[Christo]

You confuse direct quotation with interpretative reading, and heartfelt hospitality with preaching & lecturing. No wonder, then, that you also confuse murderous tyranny with fine humanism, and pagan-inspired nonsense with God-revealed truth...
A Happy and Prosperous New Year to you and all your loved ones!  0:)

Many thanks!  The same to you & your family!  BTW: spent much of the morning of Easter, 1999, in the Crețulescu church in Bucharest and celebrated Christmas - more of thew folksy Moș Crăciun kind, related to 'our' St. Nicholas traditions around December 5/6 that gave birth to the corrupt 'Santa Claus' monstrosity, I agree  - with friends in Arad, in 2000; also travelling around Maramureș the days after - learning that we share much more than you will acknowledge. 

To start with, it's good to realize that the only reason Reformed protestants are labelled 'Calvinists', is thanks to Abraham Kuyper: leader of the 'Neocalvinist' movement (as it's being called nowadays, to discern it from early & wider Calvinism) and who had a bigger following in places like the USA, Canada and Korea than in the Netherlands (I myself am not involved in any way, BTW; just turned into a Kuyper researcher recently because this fascinating man was also the leading journalist of his times). If you ever heard about 'Calvinism', it's thanks to him. 

Re: "murderous tyranny". If you'd read anything about Calvin and his followers, you'd known they were the exact opposite: refugees, exiles. The man himself had so seek asylum in free cities at the edge of the HRR (Strasbourg, Geneva) and never held or aspired any political position himself, indeed very much the opposite (your fantasies about 'theocracy', leninism etc. notwithstanding). More importantly: what his theology served were the spiritual needs of refugees without earthly hopes: the Huguenots of Southern France, Polish and Dutch (Southern Netherlands') refugee communities in Emden, London, etc. 'Calvinism' originated under these dire conditions, not from any position of power. Only later (mostly 17th century), reformed/calvinists became leading in places like Lithuania, Transylvania, Swiss cantons, Scotland, some American colonies and a few HRR territories, and especially the Dutch Republic (Northern Netherlands, reformed/calvinists becoming dominant in Holland thanks to a massive influx of Southern Netherlands' exiles and Huguenots).

And now comes Kuyer's main argument about freedom and its calvinist origins (most eloquently summarized in the Stone Lectures he gave at Princeton, 1898; still making excellent reading and the main factor behind the nomer of "Calvinism" instead of Reformed: you can find them anywhere online, e.g. here: http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/LecturesOnCalvinism.pdf ): our civil liberties originated here, under 'calvinist' regimes, especially in the Duch Republic, England (Milton, a calvinist, one of his heroes, the 1688 Glorious Revolution one of its outcomes), in the American colonies. The solid underpinning being the freedom of conscience, whioh forbid any state religion and gave birth to freedom of religion and even press freedom and other civil liberties.

Kuyper abhorred the 'pagan' French Revolution and argued it didn't contribute to these civil liberties at all - which were already given in a much 'purer' form by 17th century Calvinism. But you better read him yourself.  BTW, Kuyper had a special admiration for Romania and even paid a long visit to Carol I & Carmen Sylva (a niece of the Dutch queen) in Sinaia, in 1905).

It is indeed one and the same. Augustine was a heretic, very much more so than his arch-nemesis Pelagius. Calvin followed in his steps. Tel maitre, tel valet.

EDIT: Augustine was also the first Christian bishop and theologian who used, and advocated the use of, secular power in order to silence doctrinal opponents to orthodoxy --- orthodoxy being, of course, what he himself believed and taught. To his honor, though, it must be acknowledged that he never went so far as advocating the death penalty fo heretics. Calvin on the other hand had no problem whatsoever with killing heretics.

In short: what you detest, is not so much Calvinism - of which you hold nothing but an extremely distorted image - but Latin (Western) Christianity as a whole. To add to your horror, let me point to the example of patriarch Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638). Lucaris studied theology in Western Europe, became a calvinist, patriarch of Alexandria (1602) and then Constantinople (1620). While at these posts, he sent young Orthodox theologians to study at reformed universities in the Neterlands, Switzerland and England, in the hope of spreading the Reformed doctrine in the Orthodox church. In 1629 he wrote a confession of faith that was entirely reformed and rejected icons and the infallibility of the church. This caused a massive uproar leading to a church council held by the patriarch of Jerusalem that repudiated all calvinist doctrines. Lucaris was eventually executed by the sultan on the charge of treason. See: https://books.google.nl/books?id=KdEgOBdJqxEC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq + http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=obsculta

[zamyrabyrd]

Last but not least, look into your own heart: what Augustine (and subsequently Calvin) taught and upheld is contrary to reason and justice. Can God be contrary to reason and justice?

I found Augustine's "Confessions" a very moving and useful book.

[Florestan]

I found Augustine's "Confessions" a very moving and useful book.

Confessions is a great book indeed. It's Augustine's theological doctrine which is objectionable.

[Florestan]

Many thanks!  The same to you & your family!  BTW: spent much of the morning of Easter, 1999, in the Crețulescu church in Bucharest and celebrated Christmas - more of thew folksy Moș Crăciun kind, related to 'our' St. Nicholas traditions around December 5/6 that gave birth to the corrupt 'Santa Claus' monstrosity, I agree  - with friends in Arad, in 2000; also travelling around Maramureș the days after - learning that we share much more than you will acknowledge. 

You had told me before you visited Romania. Maybe one day we'll meet in person, either here on in The Netherlands.

To start with, it's good to realize that the only reason Reformed protestants are labelled 'Calvinists', is thanks to Abraham Kuyper

I'll certainly read his lectures attentively because on quick perusal I already found some objectionable statements. See further below.

If you'd read anything about Calvin and his followers, you'd known they were the exact opposite: refugees, exiles. [...] More importantly: what his theology served were the spiritual needs of refugees without earthly hopes: the Huguenots of Southern France, Polish and Dutch (Southern Netherlands') refugee communities in Emden, London, etc. 'Calvinism' originated under these dire conditions, not from any position of power.

I know all this alright, but where is that law written, and by whom, whereby formerly persecuted people cannot and will not turn themselves into persecutors once their power is consolidated and secured? It has happened countless times in history and in the history of the Church the use of secular power for silencing theological opposition and dissidence (exactly what early Christians suffered at the hand of Roman authorities) can be traced back to your beloved Augustine, who changed the liberal position of his youth in the uncompromising advocation of heretics being punished by the state in the course of his controversy with the Pelagians. A thoroughly detailed historical and comparative presentation of the whole affair can be found here:

https://www.gospeltruth.net/Wiggers/wiggersindex.htm

One's having been persecuted is no guarantee against one's persecuting himself later.

your fantasies

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:calvin-subversion&catid=3:didcalvinmurderservetus

https://www.gospeltruth.net/zweig/heresy_toc.htm

http://www.radicalresurgence.com/calvinsgeneva/

https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/john-calvin/

http://www.stephenhicks.org/2010/11/27/john-calvins-geneva/

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/servetus.html

https://www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/05/14/calvinists-justify-the-known-murderer-john-calvin/

http://www.thepathoftruth.com/false-teachers/john-calvin.htm

(NB: I don't necessarily subscribe to all claims above, especially in theological matters.)

If you can read French:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9publique_de_Gen%C3%A8ve_sous_Jean_Calvin

https://ia801403.us.archive.org/2/items/latheocratiegen00choigoog/latheocratiegen00choigoog.pdf

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k91623c

http://histoirerevisitee.over-blog.com/2015/05/la-republique-de-geneve-de-calvin-une-dictature-religieuse-et-morale.html

Kuyper abhorred the 'pagan' French Revolution and argued it didn't contribute to these civil liberties at all - which were already given in a much 'purer' form by 17th century Calvinism.

Kuyper writes about "how cruelly and wantonly the Roman Catholic clergy were murdered [during the French Revolution], because they refused to violate their conscience by an unholy oath" and that "in Calvinism, [there is] a liberty of conscience, which enables every man to serve God according to his own conviction and the dictates of his own heart.". But in his double quality as Dutch and Calvinist he is not very qualified to deplore the former and to exalt the latter, because little did this liberty of conscience availed Servet, Gruet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Gruet) and Ami Perrin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Perrin), or Oldenbarnevelt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_van_Oldenbarnevelt) and the Remonstrants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate), nor was it any hindrance to the destruction and pillage of the Catholic churches and the harsh treatment of their priests in The Netherlands. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm)

Kuyper had a special admiration for Romania and even paid a long visit to Carol I & Carmen Sylva (a niece of the Dutch queen) in Sinaia, in 1905).

Looks like his admiration never extended much beyond the King, the Queen and the scenery, because had he availed himself of the opportunity to study the people and his religion (there is a very fine monastery right there in Sinaia), he might have possibly been spared the embarassment of writing such nonsense as "In the Greek world of Russia and the Balkan States, the national element is still dominant, and therefore the Christian faith in these countries has not yet been able to produce a form of life of its own from the root of its mystical orthodoxy." This is indeed doubly nonsensical: first of all, the faith of Orthodox Church, and consequently the form(s) of Christian life, were taught, upheld and established long before there was any national element in "the Greek world" since it is nothing more nor less than the Apostolic faith to which nothing has ever been added, nor subtracted from, and any attempt at so doing resulted in a fiasco (the tribulations of poor Loucaris, whom I already was acquainted with, testify: he played with fire and badly burned himself; btw, one of the three councils in which the Cavinism ascribed to him was declared heretic was held in Jassy, the then capital of the Principality of Moldavia); and second, the Orthodox life is not mystical at all, it's on the contrary practical and experiential as it's concentrated on the Eucharist and Liturgy, which are the concrete incarnation of what the Apostles and the Fathers of the Church believed and taught; there is little concern in the Orthodox Church, if at all, with theological disputations, exegesis and hairsplitting, while those inclined to renounce all earthly things and devote themselves only to prayer and fasting do so on their own account and live as monks or nuns in monasteries, don't roam about preaching or imposing their strict morals on all people.

what you detest, is not so much Calvinism - of which you hold nothing but an extremely distorted image - but Latin (Western) Christianity as a whole.

This is not true. I don't "detest" Western Christianity, I just firmly believe that both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (including but not limited to, Lutheranism and Calvinism) have been led astray off the Apostolic faith exactly by accepting innovations: first because they were (wrongly) thought useful in defending Orthodoxy against heretics, and then because they were needed in order to correct the unavoidable errors stemming from the original ones, and so on in an uninterrupted chain until this very day, witness the extreme fragmentation of the Protestant denominations and the sad state of the Roman Catholicism. I confess, though, that I held the RCC in much higher esteem than any Protestant church or sect: it still retains much from the true Orthodoxy and the service it has rendered to the flourishing of arts, philosophy and science is enormous* --- although it must be said that in substituting a lifeless surrogate for the Tridentine Mass the Second Vatican Council comitted nothing less than a theological and cultural crime, if not suicide. And this from someone who in his twenties seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism and embarked upon a serious study of its history, teachings and theology, only to discover that converting would have been a grave error. Theological distortions aside, The Orthodox Church might not have all the virtues of the RCC but it certainly has few, if any, of its vices.

Now, the biggest problem with these continuous innovations is that they gradually led to the adoption of beliefs and practices which have been found, and denounced as, unjust, unreasonable, absurd and repugnant by a great many thinking and kind-hearted persons (and rightly so). Unfortunately, these well-intentioned people were in complete ignorance of what the true Apostolic faith teaches and therefore many of them were left with no other option than either to start their own sect, thus adding to the ever-increasing division of the Church, or to leave the Church altogether and become atheists. And truly it cannot be hold against them that they parted with such a God as presented to them by Catholic and Protestant theologians alike. For those who chose to stay in the Church, on the other hand, this deep division between their conscience and the teachings to which they formally adhered was a constant source of frustration and spiritual malaise. All this is a tragedy of the highest order.

(*Lutheranism and Calvinism have their merits too in this respect --- but on the whole, they are too far removed from Orthodoxy, and even directly contrary to it in essential points.)

But all this doesn't mean that my disapproval and dislike (moderate in the case of Catholicism, strong in the case of Protestantism) extends to nominal Catholics and Protestants as well. I don't subscribe to the extreme view that they are lost for believing in false teachings. I just do (very imperfectly*) my duty as an Orthodox and leave the question of who will be saved and who will be lost to God's resolution --- of course, not by foreordaining but by foreknowledge.

(*Proof of this imperfection is my very involvement in this controversy. I should have never let myself got into it because it's truly pointless: I will not convince you any more than you (or Kuyper) will convince me. Until now we have been civil and polite to each other (at least that's what I hope I've been and I know you've been) but I have bitter experience with other similar threads where things got rather nasty eventually. Maybe we should just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Let each one of us believe and profess what to the best of our faith, reason and knowledge appears to be the truth. There's nothing in so doing that can stand in the way of our mutual respect and even friendship.  0:) )

[bwv 1080]

We all owe Calvin a great debt - The period JS Bach's employment by the Calvinist Leopold of Anhalt-Köthen from 1717-23 saw his greatest output of instrumental and secular music as he had no liturgical musical duties

[Florestan]

We all owe Calvin a great debt - The period JS Bach's employment by the Calvinist Leopold of Anhalt-Köthen from 1717-23 saw his greatest output of instrumental and secular music as he had no liturgical musical duties

Ummm, no. We actually owe that debt to Leopold himself and to the later dillution of original Calvinism, because if Calvin's way in matters musical had been followed ad litteram by the Reformed posterity, instrumental music both religious and secular would have been bannished altogether --- as it indeed was in Calvin's Geneva, where fiddling could have brought you bannishment from the city.

[Christo]

my disapproval and dislike

Re: The man. He obviously had a bad press in some circles and I suppose you're, by now, well aware there's a myth – just like there's a Galilei myth, or the dark truth of the Pope being the incarnation of the Antichrist etc. I refuse to believe that you take them more seriously than academic historians and theologians. (I found your Thomas Jefferson quote the most telling, because it shows the myth in full force in Enlightenment circles already and that's where it belongs: in ideologically-motivated storytelling, not in academic discourse.) 

I guess the academic community isn't even aware of these made-up stories. In short: the only suitable place for fantasies about 'tyranny', theocracy, Lenin or Servetus, is with these ideologues, not in Calvin's biography or even ideas. To the contrary: "The aim of Calvin's political theory was to safeguard the rights and freedoms of ordinary people. Although he was convinced that the Bible contained no blueprint for a certain form of government, Calvin ... appreciated the advantages of democracy

One riddle remains: why did you only Google for this obvious nonsense (with these search words, no doubt)? Track any monography or source provided, and you'll find nothing of that kind, e.g.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Calvin
https://books.google.nl/books?id=Nn-xAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR9&dq=John+Calvin+biography&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVzMzfycvYAhULBMAKHcyRCUcQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=John%20Calvin%20biography&f=false

Re: Calvinism. The Dutch Republic (c. 1580-1795) was reformed/calvinist to the bone, from beginning till end. Admirers (esp. American and British) who sang and often still sing its highest praises may be taken with a grain of salt:  it wasn't Paradise Regained or Providential Tolerance on earth. But neither did it show the sins & shortcomings you ascribe to calvinism – indeed, Kuyper is historically correct in arguing that calvinist regimes knew more civil liberties (freedom of religion, press freedom etc.) than were found anywhere else. (Though protestants, Armenians and Orthodox also often enjoyed religious freedom under the Ottomans, I don't think you'll be inclined to make a similar claim for them).

In short: nothing wrong with calvinism-in-practice either, and so much for that myth too. You know that a back-to-the-Gospel  idea of iconoclasm motivated many in early Reformation times, and until the present day there are strict calvinists (I knew a few students) who will not enter an Orthodox church or Buddhist temple – because they feel they cannot tolerate a place of pagan worship.  You remind me a bit of them, echoing their ancient Manichean, but badly informed, fear for the darkness of the 'other'. 

[Christo]

Looks like his [Kuyper's] admiration never extended much beyond the King, the Queen and the scenery, because had he availed himself of the opportunity to study the people and his religion (there is a very fine monastery right there in Sinaia), he might have possibly been spared the embarassment of writing such nonsense as "In the Greek world of Russia and the Balkan States, the national element is still dominant, and therefore the Christian faith in these countries has not yet been able to produce a form of life of its own from the root of its mystical orthodoxy."

Re: Kuyper. I'm a simple reader, but even I understand that your quote - from his 1898 lectures - cannot be his final word on this 1905 (first) visit to Romania. He actually arrived in Bucharest after serving four years as a prime minister and his first interest was in Romania's political condition, but as always, religion and culture had his special attention - and he opens with a description of Romanian nationalism, ethnicity, language and history.

The Library of Congress has 396 digitized titles by Kuyper: https://archive.org/search.php?query=%28Abraham%20Kuyper%29, but not the French edition (two volumes) of Autour de l'ancienne mer du monde ('Om de Oude Wereldzee'). Volume 1, chapter 2, p. 43-101 is his essay on "Rumenia" (followed by chapters on Russia, Gypsies, Jews, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, the second volume dealing with the Arab and African world as far as he travelled it). I'm afraid you won't be able to make much of his account of this 1905 visit (written in 1906 after he'd returned to The Hague). Here it is: https://archive.org/details/OmDeOudeWereldzeeDl1

To offer a small impression, p. 97 informs us:

As far as religious life is concerned, Rumenia is lucky that an anti-clerical movement is almost is non-existent. The country has the privilege that the great majority of Rumanians belongs to one religion, the Greek Orthodox Church. Of its six million inhabitants this applies to 5,408,743 souls. Art. 21 of the Constitution nevertheless guarantees every resident's freedom not only of confession, but also of worship. This allows for 130,000 Roman Catholics, with 130 churches, some 30,000 Protestants with 18 churches, about 300,000 Jews with 305 Synagogues, 44,000 Mohammedans with 200 mosques, and furthermore a number of Lipomans with 28 and 7000 Armenians with 16 churches. (...)
The number of monasteries is very small with only 60, with 1700 monks and 2700 nuns. The Greek Orthodox Church is now autocephalous. She is under a Synod with 2 metropolites and 8 bishops. This Church owns 7000 church buildings with 8000 priests, and 3665 parishes. In the countryside these churches are, with some exceptions, mostly miserably-soberly furnished, but in the big cities they excel by architecture and interior ornamentation, and in the cathedrals the symbolic service is, thanks to beauty of action, delicious singing and beautiful music, impressive to a great extent. Deep roots, however, did this religion not grow in the Rumanian population, and especially in the cities, church attendance is very small. (...)    

Hope to see you there, one day! 

[Florestan]

I guess the academic community isn't even aware of these made-up stories.

I guess you automatically exclude from the academic community, say, William Naphy (https://www.abdn.ac.uk/sdhp/people/profiles/w.g.naphy) who in 2003 published with the Westminster John Knox Press (https://www.wjkbooks.com/Pages/Item/1323/About-Us.aspx) a book titled Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation (https://books.google.ro/books/about/Calvin_and_the_Consolidation_of_the_Gene.html?id=ghChMwGzEPsC&redir_esc=y) of which some very relevant excerpts are provided here, with indication of page(s): http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:calvin-subversion&catid=3:didcalvinmurderservetus

I guess you automatically exclude from the academic community Bernard Cottret (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Cottret) who in 2000 published with William Eerdmans Publications (https://www.eerdmans.com/) abook titled Calvin: A Biography (https://books.google.ro/books/about/Calvin.html?id=0rCLcxylvKUC&redir_esc=y), from which we learn that "In April 1546 Ami Perrin's wife was put on trial for refusing to testify against several friends who were allegedly guilty of having danced. She was incarcerated for refusal to testify.", that "on Thursday, June 23, 1547, several women are tried for having danced, this time including Ami Perrin's wife." (both on p. 189) and that "On Monday, June 3, 1555, several leading citizens were judged without even their presence in court or being put under arrest for the melee of May 1555. In that melee they were in protest against the new tyrranical laws. Perrin was condemned to have the hand of his right arm cut off, i.e., the hand with which he grabbed the baton that represented the church-head's (syndic's) office. He and those involved in the melee were condemned to decapitation. Then the heads and Perrin's hand were to be nailed up in public and he and his friends' bodies were to be cut into four quarters. The brothers Comparet received the sentence of decapitation and their bodies were also to be quartered. In response, most fled. Those who refused to be intimidated, and stayed eventually were executed. Two other men, Claude Galloys and Girard Thomas, were put in a sort of pillory in two different parts of town. Galloys also received the sentence of having to carry a torch and ask for mercy. Berthelier's brother Francois-Daniel was among the victims of the repression. At the same time, Calvin completely justified the severity of these sentences."

I guess you also automatically exclude from the academic community the authors of the 1888 Encyclopedia Britannica, which in its "Servetus" article states that "No law, current in Geneva, has ever been adduced as enacting the capital sentence [employed in Servetus case]. Claude Rigot, the procurer-general, examined Servetus with a view to show that his legal education must have familiarized him with the code of Justinian to this effect; but in 1535 all the old laws on the subject of religion had been set aside in Geneva; the only civil penalty for religion, retained by the edicts of 1543, was banishment."

I guess you also automatically exclude from the academic community Eugene Choisy (http://data.bnf.fr/12358699/eugene_choisy/) which in 1897 when he was pastor of the Church of Geneva published his bachelor's degree thesis titled La theocratie a Geneve au temps de Calvin (https://ia801403.us.archive.org/2/items/latheocratiegen00choigoog/latheocratiegen00choigoog.pdf) which documents, in a dispassionate and overall sympathetic manner Calvin's actions in Geneva.

All these sources concur in documenting as facts:

(1) that Calvin did institute a theocracy

(2) that Calvin did use both the spiritual and secular powers (the former belonging directly to him, the latter being generally under the influence of his teachings and exhortations) to silence his theological and political opponents, by means going from excommunication through bannishment to death penalty.

(3) that during his rule strict disciplinarian measures were instituted and enforced, including but not limited to, compulsory attendance of sermons, prohibition of dancing, singing, card/dice-playing, and secular theater plays, prohibition of using certain surnames, the closing of taverns and the strict reglementation of dressing manner.

That he did all this "pour l'honneur de Dieu" and in the sincere conviction that he served Him as the authorized interpreter and enforcer of His law is immaterial. The result is the same as he would have done it for his personal power and glory. The end does not justify the means, and besides the end was wrong in itself.

As for his theology proper, before I can discuss it I ask you again: do you subscribe to, and consider as valid, the original sin, the absence of free will, the total depravity of man, the unconditional election, the limited atonement, the irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints, all of them taught expressis verbis by Calvin?

Re: Calvinism. The Dutch Republic (c. 1580-1795) was reformed/calvinist to the bone, from beginning till end.

By this you shoot yourself in the foot because it logically implies that the persecution of Remonstrants and Catholics is reformed/calvinist to the bone.

Admirers (esp. American and British)

Fact: 80% of the Founding Fathers were not Calvinist but belonged to denominations which subscribed to the free will. Check it yourself if in doubt.

until the present day there are strict calvinists (I knew a few students) who will not enter an Orthodox church or Buddhist temple – because they feel they cannot tolerate a place of pagan worship

I am not suprised. Brainwashing is a powerful tool used by all theocrats in order to establish and justify the rule of God on Earth (which concept is heretic in itself.)

[Christo]

All these sources concur in documenting as facts:

(1) that Calvin did institute a theocracy

(2) that Calvin did use both the spiritual and secular powers (the former belonging directly to him, the latter being generally under the influence of his teachings and exhortations) to silence his theological and political opponents, by means going from excommunication through bannishment to death penalty.

(3) that during his rule strict disciplinarian measures were instituted and enforced, including but not limited to, compulsory attendance of sermons, prohibition of dancing, singing, card/dice-playing, and secular theater plays, prohibition of using certain surnames, the closing of taverns and the strict reglementation of dressing manner.

That he did all this "pour l'honneur de Dieu" and in the sincere conviction that he served Him as the authorized interpreter and enforcer of His law is immaterial. The result is the same as he would have done it for his personal power and glory. The end does not justify the means, and besides the end was wrong in itself.

As for his theology proper, before I can discuss it I ask you again: do you subscribe to, and consider as valid, the original sin, the absence of free will, the total depravity of man, the unconditional election, the limited atonement, the irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints, all of them taught expressis verbis by Calvin?

By this you shoot yourself in the foot because it logically implies that the persecution of Remonstrants and Catholics is reformed/calvinist to the bone.

Re 1: No, he didn't.
Re 2: Geneva wasn't Calvin (nor was Geneva worse than other free cities), indeed quite the contrary: he had little or no political say. You should read these sources.
Re 3: Idem.
Re 4: Persecution - under the Dutch Republic - of Remonstrants, Catholics: you better check your sources once again. (And Remonstrants were calvinists, BTW). 
Re 5: Do I ascribe to these doctrines? No doubt - but not the malevolent way you choose to interprete them (speaking of free will  ); my church holding the Apostolic creed, Nicean/Constantinople Confession, Confession of Athanasios, Confession of Augsburg, Luther's Catechism, Heidelberg Catechism, Genevan Cathechism, Confessio Belgica, Dordt Doctrines, Barmer Confession and Concordie of Leuenberg. A total of 11 and 3 or 4 of them may be labelled calvinist. More than I've ever read, BTW. 

[Christo]

I guess you ... exclude from the academic community, say,
I guess you automatically exclude from the academic community [etc.] (...)
some very fine excerpts provided here (...)
new tyrranical laws (...)
the 1888 Encyclopedia Britannica, which in its "Servetus" article (...)
Servetus (...)
Eugene Choisy (http://data.bnf.fr/12358699/eugene_choisy/) which in 1897 when he was pastor of the Church of Geneva published his bachelor's degree thesis titled La theocratie a Geneve au temps de Calvin

Oh, yes I do, absolutely: nothing but fine examples of the myth-making & story-telling I was referring to.

You better check the sources and monographs - that you also mention - and conclude for yourselves: was the man involved? Were those Genevan authorities doing anything special? 

[Florestan]

My God, Johan, do you realize how highly frustrating it is to see you stubbornly and counterfactually deny anything which doesn't fit your worldview? Calvin never did what he did and those scholars who say that he did are actually not scholars; Remonstrants and Catholics were never persecuted in The Netherlands; Calvinism is not about unavoidable predestination... No, really, my patience has been overstretched beyond any reasonable limit. I truly have better things to do than to waste my time in this thread, banging my head against a thick wall in the vain hope of making a breakthrough. Feel free to think, believe and profess whatever you want, including that history never happened or happened the way you want it to have happened. I'm out of here for good. May Jesus Christ always be with you.

[Christo]

My God, Johan, do you realize how highly frustrating it is to see you stubbornly and counterfactually deny anything which doesn't fit your worldview? Calvin never did what he did and those scholars who say that he did are actually not scholars; Remonstrants and Catholics were never persecuted in The Netherlands; Calvinism is not about unavoidable predestination...

I admire your integrity and thoroughness, even share many of your deeper convictions. But your understanding of "Calvinism" goes about as deep – and operates at a similar level of empathy and knowledge – as our ultra-dogmatic Poju's ('71dB') understanding of what he dubs "religion". 

There. I said it.  That said, I hold no complaints whatsoever, am even thankful, because you're helping me in two ways:

1. It's always it very instructive to experience what normally only behappens others; I'm thinking of the utter nonsense & piles of real shit e.g. Muslims and Jews are forced to endure on a daily base in a society like my own.

2. By establishing a few simple truths / indisputible historical facts that I'd never given much thought about:
  - The man, Calvin, was not in any way: a) a tyrant b) a theocrat or pro-theocracy c) cruel d) the executioner of Servetus e) discussing free will, "predestination" and other disputed concepts in any other but a soteriological context (actually it was Luther who'd made that point, in his famous dispute with Erasmus on free will (De servo arbitrio).
The boring reality is, that he was: a) influential but powerless b) pro-democracy and civil rights, religious freedom for Jews included c) nobody's executioner, but the helper of thousands of refugees and d) close to Luther and most of 16th century Protestantism. Literally everything you malevolently cited - your selection deliberately leaves out historical sources and better-informed historians & theologians - is part of a stubborn myth that completely fails on these bare facts (the historical record itself; no wonder you even refused to read the sober but accurate English and French Wikipedia entries & sources given there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Calvin ).
Some more specific reactions:
www.the-highway.com/theocracy_Horton.html
www.ucobserver.org/faith/2009/06/john_calvin
www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-12/john-calvin-one-of-fathers-of-modern-democracy.html
  - Reformed ('Calvinist') citizens and reformed regimes didn't misdo what you think they misdid; in the case of the Dutch Republic (I studied early modern Dutch history; my thesis was on 17th century toleration and religion in the Republic, Descartes, Spinoza etc.) you are so totally misguided that I think that a joint walk in its historic cities (esp. Amsterdam) would be a better idea than waste one more word on it.

In short: I appreciate your defense of the richess of Orthodoxy highly, and don't think you need this demonization of "others" to make your point. 

[Christo]

Why, of course! Even Liliput, Balnibarbi, Rivendell and the Moon were completely Protestant / Reformed once, and had it not been for the Jesuits they'd still have been today.

You forget Transylvania: https://www.amazon.com/Calvinism-Frontier-1600-1660-International-Transylvania/dp/0198208596

[Christo]

I admire your integrity and thoroughness, even share many of your deeper convictions. But your understanding of "Calvinism" goes about as deep – and operates at a similar level of empathy and knowledge – as our ultra-dogmatic Poju's ('71dB') understanding of what he dubs "religion". 

Almost forgotten I'd been here before. 

[drogulus]

If Calvin's thoughts (of which I've provided some key points in his own words, but it seems nobody is actually interested in discussing the real thing) and actions (about which there has been only unsubstantiated denial) mean, and stand to, reason then I'll rather have madness.

I was going to continue my series on Calvin's "fine humanism" but given the aforementioned circumstances it would utterly pointless. While not retracting anything I've said, I'm out of here. See you on other threads.

     There are subjects that consist in interpretations of interpretations and a search for a bottom turtle. I note that science doesn't have a bottom turtle, no "all the way down". So we have instead models, which are recognized as incapable of being the things that are modeled. No formal system instantiates the state of affairs it's modeling. This is a tremendous advantage as it forces you to look at the world and a model of it to crosscheck any beliefs about both.

     Because they are so central to history, the record of behavior at scale over time, it's important to study coherence systems for what they are and the influence they have and not on the assumption that the propositions advanced satisfy accepted truth criteria, even if one occasionally does (I forget which one).

     The epistemologist Susan Haack has come up with a metaphor that encapsulates how one pragmatically escapes the dilemma.

Haack introduces the analogy of the crossword puzzle to serve as a way of understanding how there can be mutual support among beliefs (as there is mutual support among crossword entries) without vicious circularity. The analogy between the structure of evidence and the crossword puzzle helps with another problem too. The clues to a crossword are the analogue of a person's experiential evidence, and the already-completed intersecting entries are the analogue of his reasons for a belief.

     Quine is on the the same wavelength with his "web of belief" and "Gods of Homer".

      Advocates of coherence system believe that knowledge about the particular formal system they advocate is of such great and decisive importance that only people who possess that particular belief system can know how such systems operate, as though they didn't all operate the same way, as innocent bystanders have observed for like forever. Bystanders will say that they don't need to know all junk science to know science, or history, or medicine. It wouldn't be possible to know "all of x" for the purpose of not bothering to believe it. Yet we do succeed in not believing what has not occurred to us, without expertise in every possible system of coherence.

     Short version: The burden of proof is on the coherentist to demonstrates there is also correspondence.