What if this calumny were true? It would still constitute an ad hominem and a well poisoning fallacy to bring it up in an attempt to disprove Calvinism. It's not possible to falsify Catholicism by droning on about Immoral Popes, the Crusades, Anti-Semitism, Galileoe, and the Inquisition. In the same way, even if these charges were legit, it would be impossible to disprove Calvinism by bashing Calvin's character. Oh sure, it would greatly weaken Calvin's credibility as a source of religious truth, but it wouldn't destroy it, since it would be simple enough to point out in response that God used some morally-flawed men to write inspired scripture.
For myself, I am pretty disturbed by the way Calvin essentially became a religious tyrant in Geneva, which was transformed into a totalitarian dictatorship under Calvin. But again, even that would not suffice to challenge the truth claims of Calvinism. His ideas, and those of his putative disciples, must be challenged in the arena of ideas.
Dave:
Your line of reasoning doesn't make sense here when contrasted with past remarks.
You say here that because you found out that it was actually a schismatic who was the source of it, that that was enough to discredit him.
However, when it came to an Anti-Catholic, James White, you were so quick to defend him and his works, to the point of even saying such things as:
"I don't see why an intelligent man like White can't do good work refuting the cults or the liberals or the homosexual activists. Truth is truth wherever it is found."
If that's the case, why can't it also be the case with these folks as well?
I mean, if I followed the same line of reasoning you have here, I would be just as right in my saying that had I found out a particular work to be by James White, that that would be enough to discredit it!
Further, whatever happened to another thing you previously said:
"I don't see the purpose of demonizing people as idiots and incompetent stooges who can't do any good thing at all, even if they are doing that to us ."
Fair question, but it is rather easily answered.
In White's case, he is an apologist, who happens to also be an anti-Catholic. When he is dealing with topics besides Catholicism, he often does good work. It's his extreme bias against Catholics that disallows him to do decent work on that topic.
With a Catholic "traditionalist" on the other hand (in this case a schismatic), there is a fundamental dishonesty. Such a person can't reasonably be accepted as speaking for the Catholic Church when he isn't even in the Church to begin with, because he has embraced a schismatic group (whereas White is what he is, like it or not, and his position is not dishonest in and of itself: just dead wrong).
That is why I think such a person has no credit when talking about Catholicism (my exact statement was: "That's quite sufficient in my mind to totally discredit the man as any sort of credible expert on anything to do with the Church").
But of course the issue in dispute here is this charge against John Calvin. Now we are on different ground. Why would I be extremely skeptical of such a charge, coming from a "traditionalist"?
Because we know right off the bat that the "traditionalists" tend to be very anti-Protestant (far more so than the Church herself is). That makes any such hyper-controversialist charge extremely suspect, on the same grounds that when a guy like James White talks about the Catholic Church, we can often find inaccuracies and distortions and half-truths and outright falsehoods.
If a person has an axe to grind, then historical speculation in the area where they are axe-grinding is highly suspect.
In matters of this sort, it is crucial to find solid, reputable, historical sources. One can't take the word of simply (1) a non-historian, and 2) particularly one whom we know already would have an irrational predisposition against the person so charged.
As it turns out (as I showed), the actual solid historical documentation for this was entirely lacking, and that is the point. The person predisposed against someone else will sop up whatever dirt he can find without doing the proper research and study as to the reliability of the sources.
Once we looked at the opinions of real historians, then the accusation was shown to be pure myth: a fabrication begun by a guy who had a personal grudge against John Calvin. Nothing that substantiates his charges has been found, so the honest, fair-minded historical inquirer cannot possibly accept thew truthfulness or even probable truth of such a charge, minus the necessary documentation and historical evidence.
If we start operating in this fashion, virtually any accusation could be made against anyone.
I meant to answer this too:
Further, whatever happened to another thing you previously said:
[ME] "I don't see the purpose of demonizing people as idiots and incompetent stooges who can't do any good thing at all, even if they are doing that to us ."
Yes, I stand by this. I should clarify that I don't believe that "traditionalists" can offer us no truth whatsoever about anything. They might, for example, offer some profoundly true meditations on prayer, or the Holy Trinity, or the Blessed Eucharist; any number of things.
When I referred to "anything to do with the Church" I meant more so those things that "traditionalists" disagree on in terms of ecclesiology specifically: ecumenism, Vatican II, running down popes, not expressing the proper respect and deference to popes' opinions, thinking and acting like they're "more Catholic than the pope", etc.
The hostility of the radtrad to Protestants comes from (often) a type of rigid, legalistic Feeneyite heresy and also an insufficient understanding of ecumenism and the relationship of Protestants to the One True Church. In other words, the two things (radtradism and anti-Protestantism) are fundamentally related, so that one causes or at least strongly effects the other.
And that is why I wouldn't trust this kind of source (not knowing anything else, in the early stages) for such a sensationalistic charge. My instincts and gut reaction were seen to be entirely correct, once I tracked down some real historians to see what they thought.
And we see that two "traditionalists" (Bob Sungenis and another guy I mentioned) seek to spread this nonsense around the Internet. That is similar to Sungenis' willingness to cite any oddball source against the Jews. It is the same laxity in documentation here, too.
But I could have been more clear in explaining why I was highly suspicious of this man's (Fr. Philippe Marcille's) credibility; I'll freely grant that.
Language and communication are things where one could always do a better job if they had tried a little harder, etc.
Dave:
How can you say about White in one instance (in the same post, in fact):
"White is what he is, like it or not, and his position is not dishonest in and of itself: just dead wrong. "
While on the other hand:
"...when a guy like James White talks about the Catholic Church, we can often find inaccuracies and distortions and half-truths and outright falsehoods."
If he's as solid a fellow as you claim him to be in your first comment (i.e., not dishonest), then how could he even produce such falsehoods as you've said of his work later in your post?
Also, does that mean that everything he's said, for example, regarding you then, in fact, true?
I can't help but notice that your remarks about him here and on other blogs as 'fawning'.
Similarly, I can't help but think that what he's said about you might perhaps be true given your evident testimony about his 'honest' character.
Very cute. It's an elementary distinction that I believe you are capable of grasping, despite your own hostile disposition towards me (and I always love being attacked by safely anonymous persons).
Falsehood can stem from any number of things, but oftentimes it flows from false premises. That is the case with white. Now a false conclusion drawn from a false premise does not have to (at all) be dishonest.
White (and you, apparently, following his footsteps) quickly assumes that if a person teaches something he considers to be false, then that person must immediately be dishonest and deliberately so. He is teaching what he knows to be false.
All in all, I don't believe that about White, and about very very few people.
Nor is an "absolute falsehood" the equivalent of a deliberate lie. The first is simply an untruth, whereas the second is an instance of the sin of bearing false witness.
So what you claim is a contradiction in your opening salvo, is, of course, not at all. I think James White is wrong, he is burdened by false premises and irrational hostilities and a ton of anti-Catholic baggage from various sources (including his own background). There are a host of factors in these matters.
But it doesn't follow from any of that, that the man is a deliberate liar, or that I should consistently think he is, based on my statements that you cite. The lack of logic and charity are on your end and his. I am being quite charitable in defending a man who has often been irrationally, vehemently unfair in his portrayals of me. Even then, I don;'t claim that he is deliberately spreading what he knows to be untrue. He's simply blinded by his anti-Catholic zeal and personal despising of me as a person (or I should say, as the "person" he mistakenly believes me to be).
It's the inability to grasp these basic ethical distinctions and the shoddy reasoning shown in your comment that causes no end of trouble on the Internet and in "real life." People insist on pretending that people and things are worse than they are.
Lastly, why in the world would I possibly want to be "fawning" towards White anyway? I've been scathingly critical of the man. I'm on records many times, saying he is a fool, an intellectual coward (I have many papers on my blog right now, or in the recent past critiquing his work that he has ignored, as almost always), and an irrational anti-Catholic.
I defend him when I think it is called for simply because it is fair in those instances to do so. Charity involves treating others fairly and not cynically. But he can't return that favor, because his anti-Catholic Calvinist worldview doesn't allow him to acknowledge that anything I do (last of all, defending him when he is unfairly treated) could possibly be of good motivation.
What I detest is falsehood and slander and lying, and that is why I will defend people subjected to it, regardless of what they think of me. I've always been this way, and alway
. . . always will be.
If that has to be twisted by people like you into something opportunistic, ugly, and dishonest, then so be it. God is watching you, and God knows my heart and my motivations (as He does, yours).
Dave
Comments like:
...despite your own hostile disposition towards me...
AND
If that has to be twisted by people like you into something opportunistic, ugly, and dishonest, then so be it.
doesn't at all demonstrate the level of charity that you claim in your post above.
In fact, all I was seeking from you was clarification on things you've said.
Also, if you really meant all that you've said in your post above regarding the importance of charity, you would not have thought such despicable thoughts about me.
To make a point, if you really believed what you said here:
Charity involves treating others fairly and not cynically.
Then you wouldn't have jumped to these 'uncharitable' conclusions about me:
...despite your own hostile disposition towards me...
AND
If that has to be twisted by people like you into something opportunistic, ugly, and dishonest, then so be it.
Get a life, huh? I spend many minutes of my time giving you straight, lengthy answers and clarifications and you come right back with the uncharitable horse manure.
People who insist on taking the most uncharitable view possible of me (my innumerable anti-Catholic critics and a few Catholics who have a beef with apologetics) will believe the nonsense, of course, but no one who is fair-minded and without a prior bias of that sort will.
In the end I can't really concern myself with folks like you. There is nothing I can do about it. I tried carefully explaining myself with reason, and we see how it turned out. It's always the same.
And ironically, it comes underneath a post where I am actually defending Calvin from a slander. Somehow that has to be demeaned so that my motives can be smeared, as if this wasn't entirely heartfelt and in complete accordance with my long-held ethical principles.
Now you want to play games and make both myself and my readers out to be fools, as if we can't see through your thinly-veiled hostility in remarks such as:
"I can't help but notice that your remarks about him here and on other blogs as 'fawning'.
"Similarly, I can't help but think that what he's said about you might perhaps be true given your evident testimony about his 'honest' character."
Anyone who has followed my sad disputes with Mr. White over 12 years now know full well the sort of things he has written about me. So for you to come to my blog and publicly wonder out loud whether he is right about all that is the dead give-away. And if I call a spade a spade and protest then I get the obligatory charge of hypocrisy and acting worse than my accuser.
And it's all from a cowardly position of anonymity. You could be anybody, for all I know: Frank Turk, David T. King, James Swan, White himself: any number of his supporters who are trying to rationalize his odd behavior and intellectual cowardice where I am concerned.
So why don't you reveal your true identity and your background? Are you an anti-Catholic? What is your association with James White (if any)? Do you ever go to his chat room? How did you discover my blog? Etc.
If you come back with two more posts consisting of this kind of claptrap you'll be banned, according to my rule on the sidebar:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ely-
purely.html
Kaos? Oh, Kaos? (echo, echo). Has anybody seen Kaos???? That's funny. I wonder where he went?
Dave says:
Charity involves treating others fairly and not cynically.
and then says:
Get a life, huh?
Yeah -- talk about:
The lack of logic and charity.
Your remarks really goes to show that you really believe in taking a charitable view of people!
Yet, I'm sure your above post wasn't entirely heartfelt and in complete accordance with (your) long-held ethical principles.
However, it seems your remarks demonstrates not only your incredible lack of charity but also your hypocrisy as well.
Since when it comes down to it, what is charity to you but horse manure?
Too bad the truth of it all was that I once admired you as an apologist -- not after this though.
And to think I once supported you.
It seems that your true colors have just come through here.
Enough said.
From Dave:
"...constructive dialogue is not possible unless there is openness, charity, and respect and courtesy shown to the other person."
But remember to read the fine print for all those who asks even innocent questions of him:
Get a life, huh?
From the anonymous coward . . . everyone is utterly impressed, I'm sure. People treat the mailman and the cashier at McDonalds better than this fool treats me.
Yes, he once supported me. But of course he doesn't have the guts to reveal his true name.
I naturally have no great affection for the likes of Calvin. But that having been said bearing false witness is a mortal sin.
Dave,
Here's a “contemporary” version of Bach's famous Cantata, "Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring," performed by the technically brilliant Australian guitarist, Phil Emmanuel. Hope you don't mind. Maybe it will lighten things a tad bit. So here, then, is to "JOY!"
"Kaos"? Where do these folks come from? And why doesn't he go "get smart"?
LOL Jordan!
Thanks for the music recommend, Ben. That was cool!
Here's one of my own: Ginger Baker drum solo from 1969. Lousy video but unbelievable drumming. WOW!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2...h?v=2Jur-
OmmDk4
Wow Dave, what a great clip! Baker’s “unbelievable drumming” more than makes up for the video quality. I was practically floating out of my chair, kinda like this adorable little guy!
http://thumbsnap.com/v/4IldQFhI.jpg
On what other blog can you go from:
1) An article with a Catholic defending Calvin from sodomy charges, to:
2) A seeming Protestant (we don't know) bashing me for hypocrisy in writing it, to:
3) A video of a guy doing a rock version of Bach's "Jesu, joy of man's desiring," followed by:
4) A Ginger Baker demonstration of state-of-the-art drumming, and finally:
5) A zero-gravity cat?
I dare say that this sequence has never happened anywhere in the history of the world! Never let it be said that we don't offer unique fare here . . .
ROFL
Jordan Potter and BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th):
If Dave can honestly (?) say about James White:
White is what he is, like it or not, and his position is not dishonest in and of itself: just dead wrong
and
I think James White is wrong, he is burdened by false premises and irrational hostilities and a ton of anti-Catholic baggage from various sources (including his own background). There are a host of factors in these matters.
Then, who's to say that this is not the same with this particular individual as well?
I mean, BenYachov, you're right -- bearing false witness is a sin.
But, if Dave can say of James White that he actually produces falsehoods and yet, on the other hand, is an honest person -- this may actually be the case with this particular individual as well.
Of course it may be the case. I didn't attack the man's honesty; only his credibility as an amateur historian with regard to a sensationalistic charge.
My position is perfectly consistent, if only you could grasp the logic of it. That is the problem (along with your excessive cynicism towards me, that doesn't help you to think logically, either).
But one more swipe at my honesty and you will be banned from this blog. I've already given you more chances to cease (two now) than my own stated rule on the sidebar.
I mean, BenYachov, you're right -- bearing false witness is a sin.
Good for you. Welcome to Christianity 0101. Now if you can figure out that you have repeatedly done this to me, by attacking my integrity and honesty over and over (completely without cause and contrary to my repeated statements), then we'll be making progress. But I don't expect to see it. It's probably nuclear blast time now, knowing that after you do that, you'll be kicked out. So flail away, my cowardly anonymous friend!
How can you reconcile your statements:
"Charity involves treating others fairly and not cynically".
and
"...constructive dialogue is not possible unless there is openness, charity, and respect and courtesy shown to the other person."
with not only the uncharitable, but clearly cynical statements you made such as:
...despite your own hostile disposition towards me...
and
If that has to be twisted by people like you into something opportunistic, ugly, and dishonest, then so be it.
and the classic uncharitable line:
Get a life, huh?
You can kick me out, but like grandma used to say:
"You cannot hide the sun with your finger just as you cannot likewise hide the Truth!"
Okay, he's banned now. All he had to do was refrain from three straight times of not attacking my character and integrity and honesty. He couldn't, and rules is rules. Let him go whine anonymously somewhere else.
Dave,
Sorry to see you had to ban Kaos. I know you had your reasons. Just remember that ultimately only God can bring order out of "Kaos." 
Hopefully there will come a time for reconciliation. In the meantime, yet another soul to add to our prayers!
--------------------------------------------------
-----
I dare say that this sequence has never happened anywhere in the history of the world! Never let it be said that we don't offer unique fare here . . .
Your post was itself as much SCREAM as that which it described! Same here, ROFL. 
Sometimes I'm really astonished that there are people who don't know (or claim not to know) the difference between honestly holding a wrong position and dishonestly holding a wrong position.
I think the folks in question honestly don't care whether their position is right or wrong, which is in some ways worse than either.
Dave, Calvin was a sodomite. St. Alphonus Ligouri, in his "A Refutation Of Heresies" stated that Calvin was not only a sodomite, but was also bi-sexual. You didn't do your homework.
Okay; then do yours, and please give us the sources that St. Alphonsus provided (assuming he did). It is not impossible for a saint to insufficiently document a charge, nor to be wrong, generally speaking.
He may have been going by this source that started the rumor. But that source has been discredited, and by reputable Catholic as well as Protestant historians.
Commenting by HaloScan
