Hmm, what about John Calvin? Seems he was wrong about some historical writings (The so called spurious writings of darn, I forget the name,Origen?). He used them for proof against the Catholic Church. But, turns out that he was wrong. The "spurious" writings were found in a library and dated back to his time, and as far as all now know, are authentic. So, just how reliable is Calvin????
>>The writer continues to be deliberately vague and pretends to have resolved the apostasy question. He also fails to distinguish between a formal and a pre-existing informal Canon.
True, I don't mention that there were pre-existing canons. HOWEVER, you have a good point and I'll have to add some discussion of this.
>>He conveniently fails to mention the reason for the Canon in the first place: pseudepigrapha began to circulate.
I do mention it. "But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired (such as the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Joseph, etc.). The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired." And I do not go into the OT controversy, as I do mention.
>>The conclusion is not inescapable because the assumptions about the Church and the Cannon have not been established.
Hmm, I think it is. I may need to add more about earlier canons and such, but the evidicence only makes my argument stronger.
I don't need Calvin to know the RCC (leadership) of the 16th century was corrupt. If it were not, why the need for a Catholic counter-reformation?
This is not to say all were corrupt; they were not. Political forces, who took the brand of Catholicism but not the spirit, took control of RCC institutions gradually. Fortunately, much of the corruption was thrown off.