GMG Classical Music Forum

A sanctuary to share all your prejudices against those who think differently, without having to feel obliged to find a connection with an American president who doesn't even have a clue what it is about.

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 01:02:47 AMI don't deny Calvin's impeccable credentials as a scholar of philosophy and law, but humanism is much more than scholarship: it's a conception of humanity and its role in the world, and a corresponding existential attitude, which Calvin never embraced.

This short lecture might help:
https://www.youtube.com/v/VFl371p36KQ  8)

This is my kind of Calvinism (Hobbes is the tiger):

(https://theinductivistturkey.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/calvin-and-hobbes-math-atheist.gif)

(http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1025884/jon5_GIF.gif)

Quote from: Cato on December 29, 2017, 06:12:58 AM
This is my kind of Calvinism (Hobbes is the tiger):

We know  :D

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 06:47:15 AMOf course it was. The Germanic languages didn't even had enough, or proper, words for the multitude of concepts and ideas expressed in Latin --- until Luther, that is, who in this respect, as in many others, was far superior to Calvin.

Wrong, (Southern Netherlands, mostly) Dutch had already devoloped into a cultural language of comparable conceptual use in the 14th and 15th centuries (long before High German, which followed Dutch in this respect). And Luther was many things, but as an intellectual no match for Cauvin (he needed other humanists like Melanchton to do the job for him).

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 06:47:15 AMOh, please, Johan. That state, which had absolutely no political connection whatsoever to the true Roman Empire was neither Sacrum, nor Imperium, nor Romanum; the title was fraudulent on all accounts --- and you know it only too well.

Voitaire's famous bon mot, but disagree: it was very much Roman, in many (law, religion, language, territory, Rome, the papacy) respects.

Quote from: Christo on December 29, 2017, 07:55:24 AM
And Luther was many things, but as an intellectual no match for Cauvin (he needed other humanists like Melanchton to do the job for him).

Oh, agreed. Calvin was the typical dry, academic, abstract intellectual who thought himself endowed with the divinely ordained mission of saving the world from sin and error; spiritual pride and intellectual arrogance blinded him to his own sins and errors and turned him very early into a fanatical and ruthless ideologue. He was a kind of Lenin avant la lettre.  Luther on the other hand, while sharing the same pride and arrogance, was nevertheless a rather sensual / sensuous man who even in the midst of his follies and errors retained a good measure of peasant common-sense and down-to-earthness which prompted him to yield to Melanchton's moderating influence on so many topics. He was by far more moderate, humane and likeable than Calvin. And anyway, whatever damage he might have caused, he more than compensated for it by prompting some of the most glorious musical achievements the world has ever seen. Calvin has no similar redeeming feature whatsoever.

On the "fine humanism" of Calvin, Part the First.

Pico della Mirandola, excerpts from De hominis dignitate (1496)

[M]an's place in the universe is somewhere between the beasts and the angels, but, because of the divine image planted in him, there are no limits to what man can accomplish.

It will be in your [Adam's] power to descend to the lower, brutish forms of life; you will be able, through your own decision, to rise again to the superior orders whose life is divine.

Let some holy ambition invade our souls, so that, dissatisfied with mediocrity, we shall eagerly desire the highest things and shall toil with all our strength to obtain them, since we may if we wish.

We have made thee neither of heaven nor of earth,
Neither mortal or immortal,
So that with freedom of choice and with honor,
As thought the maker and molder of thyself,
Thou mayest fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt prefer.
Thou shalt have the power out of thy soul's judgment,
to be reborn into the higher forms, which are divine.


John Calvin, excerpts from Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536)

...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence.

Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.

We must therefore observe this grand point of distinction, that man, having been corrupted by his fall, sins voluntarily, not with reluctance or constraint; with the strongest propensity of disposition, not with violent coercion; with the bias of his own passions, and not with external compulsion: yet such is the depravity of his nature that he cannot be excited and biased to anything but what is evil.

For what accords better and more aptly with faith than to acknowledge ourselves divested of all virtue that we may be clothed by God, devoid of all goodness that we may be filled by him, the slaves of sin that he may give us freedom, blind that he may enlighten, lame that he may cure, and feeble that he may sustain us; to strip ourselves of all ground of glorying that he alone may shine forth glorious, and we be glorified in him?


(all emphasis mine).

I ask ye all who read this: who is the true humanist here?

Quote from: Christo on December 29, 2017, 08:11:35 AM
Wrong, (Southern Netherlands, mostly) Dutch had already devoloped into a cultural language of comparable conceptual use in the 14th and 15th centuries (long before High German, which followed Dutch in this respect).

Corpus Iuris Civilis is the backbone of Roman Law, compiled in 529 -34 by order of the Roman Emperor Justinian.

First Dutch translation published in 1935-2011.

First German translation published in 1830-33.

Summa theologiae, written by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1265-74, is the backbone of the Roman Catholic Church's official theology.

First Dutch translation published in 1927-43.

First German translation published in 1886-92

Quote from: Christo on December 29, 2017, 08:11:35 AM
[The Holy Roman Empire] was very much Roman, in many (law, religion, language, territory, Rome, the papacy) respects.

The HRE did not create Roman Law. The HRE did not create Roman religion. The HRE did not create the Latin language. The HRE did not create the papacy. It adopted / imported them tale quale from the one, true, legitimate Roman Empire which predated it by more than 800 years.

The HRE laid illegitimate and fraudulent claims to those territories of the one, true, legitimate Roman Empire where the imperial authority dissolved in 476, not least because of the conscious interference of exactly the ancestors of those who created the HRE. The true and legitimate Roman Emperors strongly protested this usurpation and vehemently denounced those upstart Germanic chieftains who had the nerve to arrogate themselves the imperial majesty.

The one, true, legitimate Roman Empire fell on May 29, 1453.

Quote from: Christo on December 29, 2017, 06:40:40 AM
We know  :D

Well, it was just in case some newer, younger members here at GMG had never heard of the cartoons. 8)

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 08:18:01 AMOh, agreed. Calvin was the typical dry, academic, abstract intellectual who thought himself endowed with the divinely ordained mission of saving the world from sin and error; spiritual pride and intellectual arrogance blinded him to his own sins and errors and turned him very early into a fanatical and ruthless ideologue. He was a kind of Lenin avant la lettre. 

The Carpathians are of course famous for their one-eyed cyclopes, vampires and tailed giants. But I didn't know Count Dracula had a brother called John Calvin.

To paraphrase George Orwell, your description bears no relation to any known facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. Which leaves me wondering: do you judge more often without having even the slightest notion of the subject? To confine myself now to the French humanist: next week I'll show your verdict to a friend who happens to be a connaisseur: he will be delighted to learn such grotesque agitprop is upheld by an academic.  >:D

If you'd read Luther's biography (there are many fine ones; I read a dozen or so around 1983 but this year saw a new flood, some lying on the shelves behind me) instead of citing the usual cliché, you'ld know he was a great, but not a nice man. (In comparison Calvin was a trepid character, but also more modest and honest).

Renaissance humanism bears little resemblence to the modern usage of the word, and seems to be defined contra medieval scholasticism and to embrace the idea that human reason can intrepet scripture.  By the renaissance definition Calvin was a humanist despite burning Michael Servetus at the stake and being an overall dour iconoclast, either of which gets you booted from contemporary humanism.

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 09:53:41 AM
Corpus Iuris Civilis is the backbone of Roman Law, compiled in 529 -34 by order of the Roman Emperor Justinian.

First Dutch translation published in 1935-2011.

First German translation published in 1830-33.

Summa theologiae, written by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1265-74, is the backbone of the Roman Catholic Church's official theology.

First Dutch translation published in 1927-43.

First German translation published in 1886-92

May I point out that the only people who needed to know the contents of those works in the 19th century and earlier were lawyers, clerics and academics who had to know Latin to begin with.
Sounds to me as if the Dutch were just displaying their usual practicality.

BTW, my copy of Justinian's Institutes was published by North Holland in 1975, with offices in Amsterdam and Oxford: Latin and English translation in parallel columns, with English commentary after each section.

I suppose my New England origin and Luther's anti-Semitism combine to make me favor Calvin.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on December 29, 2017, 04:32:37 PMRenaissance humanism bears little resemblence to the modern usage of the word, and seems to be defined contra medieval scholasticism and to embrace the idea that human reason can intrepet scripture.  By the renaissance definition Calvin was a humanist

Of course he was. It's the contemporary usage of the term that explains the confusion, but this contempory 'Humanism' defies all relationship with original Humanism and is an unfortunate misnomer, IMO. The confusion even forces historians to describe pure humanists like Morus, Erasmus or Calvin as 'theologians', nowadays.  ???

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.

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 06:47:15 AMThe Germanic languages didn't even had enough, or proper, words for the multitude of concepts and ideas expressed in Latin --- until Luther, that is

The Luther myth again. Prof. Sabrina Corbellini could help you out: high literacy, the use of the vernacular, also in Bible translations and books, were common in Western Europe long before Martin Luther. As I told you before: Dutch as a cultural language (esp. in circles around the Burgundian court of the 15th century, but 13th century authors like Maerlant created marvels already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_van_Maerlant) developed earlier than High German and a whole bunch of Dutch Bible translations were widely in use long before the Reformation: https://www.rug.nl/staff/s.corbellini/research/publications.html  :)

Quote from: Florestan on December 30, 2017, 12:40:45 AMIf 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.

Your "reading" of Calvin's Institution reminds me of Richard Dawkins reading the Scriptures; i.e. with perhaps a little too little empathy. :-) (You seem to be confusing concepts like predestination or depravation with determinism & fatalism; which is very much besides the point.)  I'm afraid your imagination - Lenin! - is playing you tricks; in reality one could, with some effort, make a useful comparison between Luther and Lenin, but the temperate and destitute John Calvin .... no way. :D :D

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2017, 12:58:53 AMI'm sure that those of your students who had, or will have, the good fortune of attending a traditional Romanian Christmas or Easter or even some other feast that Calvinism suppressed or never heard about, from the religious service to the subsequent meal and merriment, will never forget the experience and will long for repeating it.  :laugh: As for Santa Claus, its super-commercial, ultra-consumerist incarnation is a quite recent import from the USA, a country with strong Calvinist roots.  ;D

"Santa Claus religion" is the only thing many protestants around (not only students) can discern in Orthodox Christianity. Lecturing & preaching won't help: what we do is introduce them to places like (nearby) Chevetogne: https://www.monasteredechevetogne.com. And sometimes, if we were lucky, to some churches and monasteries around Timișoara, especially.

So yes: fully agree, thanks! But also: found it extremely helpful to read your distorted image of 'Calvinism' (i.e. Reformed protestants), an almost perfect mirror of the "Santa Claus prejudices" held by so many protestants & evangelicals against Orthodox.

Or is it your personal revenge on the calvinist Principality of Transylvania (close relation of the Dutch Republic, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570–1711) and its present-day appearance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_Reformed_Church_District ?  ::)  >:D

(http://i.imgur.com/RlDlzPf.jpg)

Quote from: Christo on December 31, 2017, 08:22:34 AM
Your "reading" of Calvin's Institution etc

I was not going to reply anymore, but... Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders.  ;D

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:)

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

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

Quote from: bwv 1080 on January 06, 2018, 12:52:35 PM
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?

Quote from: SimonNZ on December 31, 2017, 01:11:06 PM

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

Quote from: Florestan on December 31, 2017, 02:46:44 PMYou 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!  :D The same to you & your family!  ;D 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  :D - with friends in Arad, in 2000; also travelling around Maramureș the days after - learning that we share much more than you will acknowledge.  ;D

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.  8)

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).

Quote from: Florestan on January 06, 2018, 09:49:06 AMIt 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

:D

Quote from: Florestan on January 06, 2018, 12:58:54 PM
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.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on January 07, 2018, 07:19:04 AM
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.

Quote from: Christo on January 07, 2018, 06:41:48 AM
Many thanks!  :D The same to you & your family!  ;D 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  :D - with friends in Arad, in 2000; also travelling around Maramureș the days after - learning that we share much more than you will acknowledge.  ;D

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

Quote
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.

QuoteIf 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 (https://www.gospeltruth.net/Wiggers/wiggersindex.htm)

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

Quoteyour fantasies

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:calvin-subversion&catid=3:didcalvinmurderservetus (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 (https://www.gospeltruth.net/zweig/heresy_toc.htm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.thepathoftruth.com/false-teachers/john-calvin.htm (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://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9publique_de_Gen%C3%A8ve_sous_Jean_Calvin)

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

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k91623c (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 (http://histoirerevisitee.over-blog.com/2015/05/la-republique-de-geneve-de-calvin-une-dictature-religieuse-et-morale.html)

QuoteKuyper 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Gruet)) and Ami Perrin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Perrin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Perrin)), or Oldenbarnevelt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_van_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 (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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeldenstorm))

QuoteKuyper 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.

Quotewhat 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:) )

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

Quote from: bwv 1080 on January 09, 2018, 08:15:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 08, 2018, 04:12:18 AMmy 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  :D 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.  :D You remind me a bit of them, echoing their ancient Manichean, but badly informed, fear for the darkness of the 'other'.  ::)

Quote from: Florestan on January 08, 2018, 04:12:18 AMLooks 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. 8) 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. (...)    ;D

Hope to see you there, one day!  ;D

Quote from: Christo on January 09, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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/ (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 (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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quoteuntil 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.)

Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2018, 12:18:14 PMAll 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).  :D ;D
Re 5: Do I ascribe to these doctrines? No doubt - but not the malevolent way you choose to interprete them (speaking of free will  8)); 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.  :P

Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2018, 12:18:14 PMI 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/ (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?  ::)

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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 10, 2018, 12:49:37 AMMy 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".  >:D

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.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 31, 2018, 01:33:54 AMWhy, 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
(https://img.haikudeck.com/mi/9124c57c17646c47980ed6651afa500c.png)

Quote from: Christo on January 10, 2018, 06:17:11 AMI 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".  >:D

Almost forgotten I'd been here before.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on December 30, 2017, 12:40:45 AM
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.

     (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)