Replies

>>>So, the fact that Calvin was wrong about some writings, when there was no evidence of such writings, makes the Institutes not reliable?

Well, it shows that much of his premises were flawed to begin. Had he been guided by the Holy Spirit and not hiw own will, he couldn't have trashed the writings. Take that as a big clue as to who was behind his doctrines.

His error hints at how how he depended on the intellect of himself, his immediate predecessors, and his contemporaries. If you think the Holy Spirit was behing this tremendous blunder, think again.

Now, the Church sided on the historical evidence and bet on the authenticity of the writings. Calvin bet against it, and, well he lost. Church 1, Calvin 0.

Think about it, if he got the part about the Divine orgins and Catholicty of the Church wrong, how can he credibly argue against it's doctrines? His denial of the Catholic Church was an underlying theme in his works.

How can he argue for his version of Church structure when the documents prove him wrong in the first place? Had he know the writings were authentic, his doctrines and organization of the faith would be more "Catholic". (He'd still be protestant, but his system would resemble the Catholic faith much more.)

>>This is pathetic. Calvin is somehow "bad" because later they found the writings in question due to greater scientific advances? Say that again?

This doesn't make Calvin bad, just very wrong in his idea in what the Church actually was and is.