[nathanbedford]

The author, identified and published in a recognized-if left-wing-national newspaper of undeniably high prestige, says Calvin is innocent.

The unidentified commentator says he is guilty but he makes no acknowledgement whatsoever of the author's assertions or evidence, indeed, one cannot even be certain from the comment that he has even read the article. The author says that Calvin was not even in town at the time of the execution. The commentator says he was responsible for it and even ordered it! The author asserts the negative, the commentator asserts the affirmative. The author cites no facts in support of his position or references. The commentator merely rehearses the original allegations against Calvin which the author had categorically refuted. But the commentator gives me not a single reason to believe what he says. Advocating the affirmative side of a proposition, the commentator is in a better position to submit facts in support. The author is advocating the negative and we are all aware of how difficult it is to prove the negative. Yet the author did submit facts and references. The commentator has not.

Please tell me how merely repeating the commentator's unsupported statement advances our understanding of Calvin and his contribution, if any, to American independence? If we have a brief against Calvin, can we at least make the case and support it? Or is this a proxy?

[ckilmer]

people may trash calvin. however it is undeniable that—at the time of the american revolution — the majority of the american denominations — swedish,dutch, german, french, english and scottish —were calvinist.

Its also undeniable that almost immediatly after the revolution — the USA began its long march away from calvinism.

The big heresy of the 19th century was the arian heresy The article mentions servetus. but the USA didn’t get its arianism from servetus. rather that heresy came from Issac Newton — who was held in near godlike status for 200 years or so after his death in the english speaking world.

Newton in turn got his arianism from bacon/decartes scientific methodology. They created a tree of knowledge which totally inverted the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) in the garden of eden. according to bacon/decartes tree of knowledge —theology side by side with witchcraft was placed as a sub branch of philsophy —