And of course one must know the precise Latin and Greek terms used by the fathers. But this is primarily an example of Jason’s notorious “can’t see the forest for the trees” obfuscation. Is there really all that much of a difference, and does it have any significant effect on this discussion? No. There certainly is not much difference in English. Merriam-Webster Online gives the following definitions:

Inerrancy: “exemption from error.”

Infallible: “incapable of error.”

This ain’t exactly the difference between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Free Online Dictionary is almost identical:

Inerrancy: “exemption from error.”

Infallibility: “the quality of never making an error.”

Fr. John A. Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary is also instructive:

Inerrancy: The absence of error. Commonly applied to the Bible as the revealed word of God. (Etym. Latin in-, not + errare, to err: inerrans, not wandering.)

Infallibility: Freedom from error . . . (Etym. Latin in-, not + fallibilis; from fallere, to deceive: infallibilis, not able to deceive, or err.)

And the terms “infallible” and “inerrant” are used in different ways in different contexts. I wouldn’t just distinguish between what one church father might say as compared to the comments of another father.

Muddying the waters is fine: let Jason play that game if he must; but now how about some actual examples, so we can examine something concrete, rather than dealing with vague abstractions and by no means irrefutable generalizations? In the rare instances where Jason gives these, invariably his “case” collapses or loses much of its alleged force, as we have seen throughout this critique, and as I have shown again and again in past dialogues with him.

I would also distinguish between how different concepts can be in mind at different times within the writings of a single father. A reference to the reliability of a church or bishop, for example, isn’t necessarily meant to be a reference to infallibility.

Nor is it necessary for this to be the case, to defend legitimate Catholic development of doctrine, as I have explained several times in the previous installments. But it sounds impressive, so Jason keeps using this polemical tactic.

A church or other entity that’s correct in its teachings can be considered inerrant in that sense without an accompanying belief that error isn’t possible in the future.

The additional element is what we call indefectibility. It is a root assumption of apostolic succession: that the truth will never be lost; it will always be preserved.

A church that’s doctrinally correct today could be doctrinally incorrect fifty years from now.

That is usually the case in Protestantism, yes; while Catholic doctrine remains the same. So Jason’s analysis surely applies to Protestants on a large scale.

Or a church that’s expected to always be correct on some issues could err on other issues. Many people, including Protestants, believe that a church has always existed since the time of the apostles and will always exist until Christ’s return.

Good for them. Kindergarten Christianity . . .

Since particular characteristics are required for an entity to qualify as that church, the church that always exists would have to always have those characteristics. For example, somebody could argue that beliefs such as monotheism, the Messiahship of Jesus, and the resurrection are essential Christian doctrines, that such doctrines must be present in order for the church to be present, and that therefore there always is a church that holds such beliefs. We could argue that such a view involves an infallible church, but I don’t think that’s what most people have in mind in disputes over church infallibility.

Since those things are held in common by all Christians, they do not by themselves resolve the problem of which is the one true Church. Jews and Muslims and Arians and, e.g., Native American religionists, however, are monotheists, too.

But if you read the article by A.N.S. Lane that I linked, you’ll see some examples of the wide variety of views of the church and tradition that existed in the patristic era and later centuries.

Lane’s article (he is an evangelical Protestant) quite surprisingly makes the same fundamental mistake about the nature and origin of a fairly explicit conception of development of doctrine, that I have noted as present in pseudo-scholars and hyper-critics of Newmanian development, such as William Webster and James White. It is assumed that the notion of doctrinal development was hatched almost out of the blue by Cardinal Newman in the 1840s (and some — like pseudo-patristic-“scholar” David T. King — have ignorantly equated it with the heretical and condemned modernist “evolution of dogma”). Hence, Lane writes on pp. 47-48, about “the unfolding view” that he had earlier equated with Newmanian development:

But this does not mean that there is no novelty in the unfolding view. From Augustine to Bossuet it was assumed that what the contemporary church held was Catholic because it had always been held by the church. The contemporary teaching of the church was a source because explicit apostolic tradition was to be found there. The modern view is very different. The contemporary teaching of the church is normative even although it is only implicit in Scripture and earlier tradition.

He completely overlooks the crucial contribution of St. Vincent of Lerins (d. c. 450): whose teaching contains the basic category distinctions of Newman’s theory of development. It’s not as if this is some unknown thing among historians of doctrine (which is why it is quite remarkable that a scholar of the stature of Lane overlooked it). Cardinal Newman himself refers to him in his Essay on Development. For example:

Section 1. First Note of a Genuine Development—Preservation of Type

This is readily suggested by the analogy of physical growth, which is such that the parts and proportions of the developed form, however altered, correspond to those which belong to its rudiments. The adult animal has the same make, as it had on its birth; young birds do not grow into fishes, nor does the child degenerate into the brute, wild or domestic, of which he is by inheritance lord. Vincentius of Lerins adopts this illustration in distinct reference to Christian doctrine. “Let the soul’s religion,” he says, “imitate the law of the body, which, as years go on, developes indeed and opens out its due proportions, and yet remains identically what it was. Small are a baby’s limbs, a youth’s are larger, yet they are the same.” (from Part II, chapter 5: “Genuine Developments Contrasted With Corruptions”)

Newman wrote in a latter dated 19 July 1862:

As to development of doctrine and action in the Church I should hold to Vincentius’s account of it, who compares it to bodily growth, “ut nihil novum postea proferatur in senibus, quod non in pueris jam antea latitaverit,” . . . (from The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, by Wilfred Ward, 1912, Vol. I, Appendix to Chapter 18)

Philip Schaff also understood that both St. Augustine and St. Vincent espoused an explicit notion of doctrinal development:

Augustine, the ablest and the most devout of the fathers, . . . justly subordinates these councils to the Holy Scriptures, which are the highest and the perfect rule of faith, and supposes that the decrees of a council may be, not indeed set aside and repealed, yet enlarged and completed by, the deeper research of a later day. They embody, for the general need, the results already duly prepared by preceding theological controversies, and give the consciousness of the church, on the subject in question, the clearest and most precise expression possible at the time. But this consciousness itself is subject to development. While the Holy Scriptures present the truth unequivocally and infallibly, and allow no room for doubt, the judgment of bishops may be corrected and enriched with new truths from the word of God, by the wiser judgment of other bishops; the judgment of the provincial council by that of a general; and the views of one general council by those of a later. . . . Augustine, therefore, manifestly acknowledges a gradual advancement of the church doctrine, which reaches its corresponding expression from time to time through the general councils; but a progress within the truth, without positive error. For in a certain sense, as against heretics, he made the authority of Holy Scripture dependent on the authority of the catholic church, in his famous dictum against the Manichaean heretics: “I would not believe the gospel, did not the authority of the catholic church compel me.” In like manner Vincentius Lerinensis teaches, that the church doctrine passes indeed through various stages of growth in knowledge, and becomes more and more clearly defined in opposition to ever-rising errors, but can never become altered or dismembered. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, ch. 5, § 65. The Synodical System. The Ecumenical Councils)

Schaff even states that Augustine’s and Vincent’s formulation of development were “substantially the same” as Newman’s:

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity. “The best thinking” (says Dr. Flint, in his Philosophy of History in Europe, I. 40), “at once the most judicious and liberal, among those who are called the Christian fathers, on the subject of the progress of Christianity as an organization and system, is that of St. Augustin, as elaborated and applied by Vincent of Lerins in his ‘Commonitorium,’ where we find substantially the same conception of the development of the Church and Christian doctrine, which, within the present century, De Maistre has made celebrated in France, Mohler in Germany, and Newman in England.” (Editor’s Preface to City of God, 38-volume set of the Church Fathers, 10 December 1886)

Not that Vincent is a conservative who excludes the possibility of all progress in doctrine. In the first place, he admits that it has been the business of councils to perfect and polish the traditional formulae, and even concepts, in which the great truths contained in the original deposit are expressed, thereby declaring ‘not new doctrines, but old ones in new terms’ (non nova, sed nove). Secondly, however, he would seem to allow for an organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of the human body from infancy to age. But this development, he is careful to explain, while real, must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine concerned. Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [1 Timothy 6:20] ‘guard the deposit’, i.e., the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church’s unerring tradition. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco: revised edition of 1978, 50-51)

For much more documentation along these lines, see my copiously documented paper: Development of Doctrine: Patristic & Historical Development (Featuring Much Documentation from St. Augustine, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Thomas Aquinas, Vatican I, Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Etc.) [3-19-02]It is clear when one reads St. Vincent, that his “dictum” (“held everywhere by all,” etc.) is regarded in his own understanding as perfectly consistent with development of doctrine. And the exposition of the latter in this very same work where the dictum appears (The Commonitorium) is, in fact, the most explicit treatment of development in the Church fathers (a delightful irony indeed, for those acquainted with the debates on this issue).

Therefore, to pit the dictum against development, as if they were antithetical, fundamentally misses the point, and misrepresents the thought of Newman and St. Vincent alike, as well as the historic “development of development.” Here is what St. Vincent wrote (my color highlighting, to emphasize development motifs; bolding added to chapter titles):

The Commonitorium (Notebooks) (c. 434)

For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies [ link ]

Translated by the Rev. C. A. Heurtley, D.D., the Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church.

Chapter II.

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

[4.] I Have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason, – because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

. . . Chapter VII.

How Heretics, craftily cite obscure passages in ancient writers in support of their own novelties.

[19.] This condemnation, indeed, seems to have been providentially promulgated as though with a special view to the fraud of those who, contriving to dress up a heresy under a name other than its own, get hold often of the works of some ancient writer, not very clearly expressed, which, owing to the very obscurity of their own doctrine, have the appearance of agreeing with it, so that they get the credit of being neither the first nor the only persons who have held it. This wickedness of theirs, in my judgment, is doubly hateful: first, because they are not afraid to invite others to drink of the poison of heresy; and secondly, because with profane breath, as though fanning smouldering embers into flame, they blow upon the memory of each holy man, . . .

. . . Chapter XX.

The Notes of a true Catholic.

[48.] This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, “There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you:” as though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not forthwith rooted up by God, namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest that is, that it may be apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the Catholic faith.

. . . Chapter XXIII.

On Development in Religious Knowledge.

[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.

[56.] In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

[57.] For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church’s field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result, – there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind-wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

[58.] For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.

[59.] But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, – if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, – this, and nothing else, – she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.

. . . that’s not all that Hegesippus said, and you’re misrepresenting even the one portion of his comments that you’re describing. Here’s what Eusebius tells us about Hegesippus’ comments:

[he cites Ecclesiastical History in this entry. I shall cite — unlike Jason — the entire chapters of 3:32 and 4:22]:

III, Chapter 32

1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording, a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising. In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.
2. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.
3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.
4. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.
5. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.
6. He writes as follows: They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.
7. In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.
8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called.’

IV, Chapter 22: [my color highlighting]

1. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
2. His words are as follows: And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.
3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.
4. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

5. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.
6. The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.
7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.
8. And not only he, but also Irenæus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. And when speaking of the books called Apocrypha, he records that some of them were composed in his day by certain heretics. But let us now pass on to another.

III, 32: the two uses of “attempted” indeed indicate that indefectibility was not overcome. The heretical teaching is placed in contradistinction against “in opposition to the preaching of the truth”: that is, orthodox Catholic teaching, that remains as it ever was (as seen in his words from the next excerpt). The heretic tries to overpower the Church but always fails. This description brings to mind Jesus’ statement:

Matthew 24:24 (RSV) For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (cf. Mk 13:22)

Luke 18:7 And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?

IV, 22, sections 1-3 clearly show that Hegesippus believed in apostolic doctrine and succession. He then goes on to detail the proliferation of heresies, that have always been present, since there are always folks around who will believe in false doctrine. He says that the Church was “corrupted.” But there are different ways to interpret this. The first obvious distinction to be made is to note that the orthodox Christian group and the heretical sect that is doctrinally opposed to it are two different groups in the first place.

By definition, a heretical sect is separate and apart (that ‘s why they take on different names: usually parroting the founders, as we see above): they are schismatic. They are no longer considered to be part of the orthodox Catholic Church. This is made clear if one studies examples mentioned above that are listed in Catholic Encyclopedia entries:

Simonians: “A Gnostic, Antinomian sect of the second century . . . The Simonians used magic and theurgy, incantations, and love-potions; they declared idolatry a matter of indifference that was neither good nor bad, proclaimed fornication to be perfect love, and led very disorderly, immoral lives. In general, they regarded nothing in itself as good or bad by nature. It was not good works that made men blessed, in the next world, but the grace bestowed by Simon and Helena on those who united with them. The Simonians venerated and worshiped Simon under the image of Zeus, and Helena under that of Athene. The sect flourished in Syria, in various districts of Asia Minor and at Rome.”

Dositheans: “Followers of Dositheus, a Samaritan who formed a Gnostic-Judaistic sect, previous to Simon Magus. . . . It is certain, however, that a Jewish sect, mentioned by several Arabic and other historians under the name of Dusitamya or Dostân, continued to exist till the tenth century, and that they were considered similar to the Kutîm, or Samaritans. But they seem never to have possessed any importance in the Christian world, in which from the earliest times there existed but a vague reminiscence of their name, though they continue to be mentioned in descriptions and lists of heresies, such as the “Hæreses” of Epiphanius and similar collections.”

Marcionists (“Marcionites”): “Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, . . . Marcion is said to have asked the Roman presbyters the explanation of Matthew 9:16-17, which he evidently wished to understand as expressing the incompatibility of the New Testament with the Old, but which they interpreted in an orthodox sense. His final breach with the Roman Church occurred in the autumn of 144, for the Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ to the beginning of their sect. Tertullian roughly speaks of a hundred years and more. Marcion seems to have made common cause with Cerdo (q.v.), the Syrian Gnostic, who was at the time in Rome; that his doctrine was actually derived from that Gnostic seems unlikely. Irenaeus relates (Against Heresies III.3) that St. Polycarp, meeting Marcion in Rome was asked by him: Dost thou recognize us? and gave answer: I recognize thee as the first born of Satan. This meeting must have happened in 154, . . .”

Valentinians: “Valentinus, the best known and most influential of the Gnostic heretics, was born according to Epiphanius (Haer., XXXI) on the coast of Egypt. He was trained in Hellenistic science in Alexandria. Like many other heretical teachers he went to Rome the better, perhaps to disseminate his views. He arrived there during the pontificate of Hyginus and remained until the pontificate of Anicetus. During a sojourn of perhaps fifteen years, though he had in the beginning allied himself with the orthodox community in Rome, he was guilty of attempting to establish his heretical system. His errors led to his excommunication, after which he repaired to Cyprus where he resumed his activities as a teacher and where he died probably about 160 or 161.”

Basilidians: “The earliest of the Alexandrian Gnostics; he was a native of Alexandria and flourished under the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus Pius, about 120-140.

Therefore, the Catholic Church was not itself corrupted (as he makes clear in 1-3, and in the two appearances of “attempt” in the other excerpt). It makes more sense to interpret this description as “beset or troubled by the controversies that lead to the schisms and false teachings of heretics.” In other words, Church doctrine was not corrupted. Thus, he recounts the orthodoxy of Rome and Corinth, and indeed, true doctrine “In every succession, and in every city.” But that doesn’t mean no heretics are around.

The same dynamic applies to Protestantism, literally as soon as it gets off the ground. Luther and Calvin think their own churches are the orthodox ones, and they utterly despise the “sects” and “fanatics” who arose initially in their ranks. Carlstadt, for example, was a Luther cohort, then he split and did his own fanatical thing. Does that mean, that Lutheranism was corrupted, because Carlstadt once was in the fold? Schismatic persons are always around:

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 11:18-19 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, [19] for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Jude 1:17-19 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; [18] they said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” [19] It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

We are also told in Scripture that there will be those of counterfeit faith who will infiltrate the true Church. But this does not lead to corruption of doctrine, which is a different thing (indefectibility). Hence we read:

Matthew 7:15 (RSV) Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Luke 8:11-15 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. [12] The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, that they may not believe and be saved. [13] And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. [14] And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. [15] And as for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Acts 20:27-30 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. [28] Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son. [29] I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; [30] and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

2 Timothy 3:1-9, 14 [1] But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. [2] For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, [3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, [4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. [6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, [7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. [8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; [9] but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. . . . [14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

In context, then, what Hegesippus stated was perfectly coherent and understandable (and no disproof whatever of any Catholic position or historical understanding). It is only Jason’s wooden literalism and ignoring of relevant context, that would filter the data and make it come out as if the indefectibility of the Church were being denied.

Not only is your reading of the first passage I cited dubious in itself, but it’s also contradicted by the second passage I cited. Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus thought that false teachers did corrupt the church and divide it.

The Church was only “divided” or “corrupted” in the limited sense of some folks accepting heresies, who then left or were excommunicated. That doesn’t mean that, therefore, apostolic truth was no longer known, having been corrupted. The very standard of apostolic truth was what was used to deem these other beliefs heretical in the first place (just as Paul did in the Bible). But they were not part of the Church, having adopted heresy. Nor is indefectibility touched by the presence of heretics: as long as the one orthodox, apostolic, biblical truth is still in existence and upheld by the One True Church.

He says that the church was a pure virgin because such false teachers had remained “in obscure darkness”. He then refers to the “rise” of such men after the time of the apostles. A “rise” doesn’t suggest that these men remained in “obscure darkness”. But, regardless of how we read that first passage, the second passage I cited states that the church was corrupted.

It does not. It has to be understood in its overall context and spirit, rather than isolated phrases jerked out of context to “prove” some pseudo-case that would have apostolic Christianity thoroughly corrupted already in the second century. Yet somehow (granting these absurdities), it managed to miserably kick around for another two centuries, to the Golden Age of Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome et al. How could this be, if it had become so “corrupt” in this early period? Protestantism (in all its guises) has never offered even a coherent (let alone plausible) explanation of the supposed (doctrinal) “corruption” or apostasy of Catholicism.

Some place it right after the apostles died; others in the second or third century, with the more obvious and explicit appearance of many “Catholic” doctrines and/or the episcopacy; others at Constantine’s time (around 313); others at the papacy of Leo the Great in the 5th century; others at the papacy of Gregory the Great in the late sixth century; others (the anti-Catholic wing of Orthodoxy) at 1054; others at the early Middle Ages, as transubstantiation and other doctrines are more fully developed and made dogma; others at the Inquisition; others in the 15th century; others at Trent (where the “gospel” — as unbiblically defined — was supposedly rejected). Take your pick of one of these goofball theories. There are all kinds of them, and no two agree (and none make any sense, once properly scrutinized): just as in the case of the false witnesses against Jesus at His trial.

Christian testimony has evidential value even if the church isn’t infallible. When there’s widespread agreement among eighteenth-century Americans that George Washington wrote a particular document, that widespread testimony has some evidential significance without any accompanying belief in the infallibility of eighteenth-century Americans or some organization they belonged to.

Patristic data doesn’t have to exhibit explicit awareness of infallibility because it was just the kernel or early development of that idea. It was not inconsistent with infallibility, which is aligned with many similar concepts: authority, binding power, reliability, indefectibility, tradition, certainty of truth, doctrinal assurance, apostolic succession, orthodoxy, the standard over against heretics, etc. Jason’s mistake is what I noted early on: he irrationally expects to find the full-blown oak tree when it is only reasonable to find the acorn or small tree. And so he wars against a straw man.

You then go on to cite Eusebius’ comments about 2 Peter and The Shepherd Of Hermas. But Eusebius’ position on 2 Peter doesn’t represent the majority, and the fact that some churches used The Shepherd Of Hermas doesn’t suggest that it was accepted as scripture by most or all Christians.

Jason the amateur historian says this. But F. F. Bruce, the credentialed Protestant Bible scholar, cites Eusebius about 2 Peter and appears to differ:

We may think, for example, of the widespread hesitation in accepting 2 Peter .[Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3. 3. 1: “But the so-called second epistle [of Peter] we have not received as canonical . . .” ] (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1988, 263)

There was considerable hesitation about 2 Peter, but by the time of Athanasius it was no longer a disputed book in the Alexandrian church or in western Christendom. (Ibid., 259)

The most disputed of all the disputed books of the New Testament is probably 2 Peter . . . (Ibid., 251)

Origen is the earliest Christian writer to mention 2 Peter; it does not appear to have been known much before his day. [footnote: Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6. 25. 8] (Ibid., 193)

10. We’re not living in the context of somebody like Papias or Irenaeus, much as we aren’t living in the context of the Old Testament patriarchs or a contemporary of Moses or Jeremiah.

No kidding. But that is why we can study history, isn’t it?: to get our psyches wrapped around a particular time period, just as biblical exegesis attempts to think along with the Bible writer we are studying.

The churches at the time of Papias or at the time of Irenaeus had some advantages that we don’t have today.

Yes: no Protestants to disagree with everything under the sun and to think in heretofore unknown (and often anti-biblical) categories, and viciously self-contradicting ways! But there were a lot of heretics running around. One had to cling to Rome in order to know for sure what was orthodox and what wasn’t. That was the gold standard. Rome faithfully kept the faith of the Bible and the apostles.

The evidential value of consulting a bishop of Rome in the second century doesn’t lead us to the conclusion that there’s just as much evidential value, or any, in consulting a Pope today.

Back to this nonsense again. Everything goes back to the Bible. If we can ground a doctrine in the Bible, then we can know it is true on those grounds. If there is such a thing as priests, bishops, and popes, and hierarchical ecclesiological structure in Scripture (as there assuredly are), then those things are worthy of belief as well, as part of the apostolic deposit. If there is such a thing as the Church and the indefectibility of that Church (as there assuredly are), then we can certainly believe that this extends through history.

How do we do that? By following the line of apostolic succession and determining what was believed everywhere and by all, and the true line of development of doctrine. If an office was valid in the New Testament, then it was intended for the Church perpetually, not just for New Testament times. Thus, the biblical argument for papal succession follows straightforwardly, as a matter of practical common sense. There are also abundant biblical analogies and models for infallibility and apostolic succession.

I’ve said before that if I were in the position of somebody like Papias, I wouldn’t adhere to sola scriptura.

I wouldn’t either, if I had read the Bible and had read both Catholic and Protestant beliefs regarding the rule of faith. There is no contest whatever as to which rule of faith is more in conformity with the Bible (and Church history).

But we aren’t in his position. We’re in a much different position. If sola scriptura had been widely or universally rejected early on, it wouldn’t follow that it couldn’t be appropriate later, under different circumstances.

This is extremely interesting, since Jason seems to be conceding (subtly, in his use of hypothetical illustration) that sola Scriptura is very difficult to document in the fathers (as indeed is the case: I proved it again and again in my own excruciatingly long debate with him on that very topic). And he is employing the typical Protestant theological relativism or doctrinal minimalism. I fully agree with what Nick wrote on my blog; about this comment of Jason’s (and I thank him for highlighting a very important thing):

In other words, by his own admission, sola Scriptura is relative. He wouldn’t have ‘seen enough’ in Scripture way back then in Papias’ time to embrace it . . . but somehow sola Scriptura becomes “appropriate” later on.

The great irony here, in addition to this relativism, is the huge implication that this carries for the ostensible Protestant project to co-opt the Church fathers and make them out to be Protestant. Traditionally (oops: sorry for the bad word there), in the heady, revolutionary days of the 16th century, that was the goal. The very word “reformer” means that the intention was to return a thing to what it was formerly: not to overthrow it. That was the Protestant myth, that died a slow death in many of us: such true believers were we as Protestants.

John Calvin always sought to demonstrate that the fathers (above all, St. Augustine) agreed with his positions, over against the Catholic ones. I know this, because I have just completed a critique of Book IV of his Institutes. Luther and Lutherans have sought to do the same thing: though not without much ambiguity. That’s because historic Protestantism still believed in truth all down the line, and each brand thought that it had it. What was a given then: unthinkable to even question, is now a mere option.

That was historic, “magisterial Reformational” Protestantism. But (to think according to Jason’s mentality for a moment), that was then, and this is now. After having expended tons of energy and hours sophistically defending Protestantism and revising history to make it appear that it is not fatal to Protestant claims (which is a heroic feat: to engage at length in such a profoundly desperate cause), now, alas, Jason comes to his senses and jumps on the bandwagon of fashionable Protestant minimalism, relativism, and the fetish for uncertainty. He resides, after all, in the “much different position” of the 21st century. He knows better than those old fuddy-duds 1500 years ago. What do they know, anyway?

So now he “gets” it. Assuming that sola Scriptura was “widely or universally rejected early on” (as in fact it was), it doesn’t matter, you see, because (hallelujah!) it can be “appropriate later, under different circumstances.” Why are we having this discussion at all, then, if it doesn’t matter a hill of beans what the fathers en masse thought? The rule of faith is as variable as the weather and President Obama’s latest opinion on war policy.

Jason has arrived. It took a while, but better late than never. He now knows that all the historical argumentation is ultimately just a game: to make Catholics look like dumbbells and to bolster up the hopeless anti-Catholic fringe position within Protestantism. If cornered, he can appeal to the oh-so-cool fetish of uncertainty and nuanced relativistic theology and ecclesiology. That’s the cure-all. It’s the timeworn Protestant slippery fish / moving target routine (like the ducks at a carnival sideshow), in a clever new guise. It’s also a curious mix of fundamentalism and postmodernist mush.

Ultimately, then, he shows himself to be a-historical in the final analysis (and Protestantism so often is, by its very origins and fundamental nature, though many individual Protestants seek to learn history and incorporate it in their worldview). It’s a classic case. How much these four sentences of his reveal! They’re like a suicide bomb strapped to his entire argument. It just went up in smoke. But it has far more problems than just this relativistic foolishness.

11. The ecumenical councils are the most popularly accepted examples of an exercise of alleged church infallibility. Yet, there have been many disagreements, and continue to be many, regarding which councils are ecumenical and which portions of the ecumenical councils are to be accepted.

Like what? Again, we have mere vague statements. Does anyone think this sort of method of “amateur apologist sez whatever slogan comes into his head and expects it to be accepted as Gospel Truth” is impressive?

Councils like Nicaea and First Constantinople helped in sorting through some controversial issues, and those councils were eventually widely accepted, but they were also widely rejected for a while.

By whom? And how does that disprove that they were what they were, anyway, because some folks didn’t accept them?

While heretics and the many branches of what we call orthodoxy widely agreed about scripture, there was no comparable agreement about a system of church infallibility. The Arians would reject anti-Arian councils, and the anti-Arians would reject Arian councils, but neither side would reject the gospel of Matthew or Paul’s epistle to the Romans when such a document was cited against that side’s position.

Oh, this is brilliant. So because people whom we all agree were heretics rejected orthodox councils, and because orthodox Catholicism rejected heretical councils, this supposedly proves something because both sides accepted Matthew’s authenticity as inspired Scripture? But in the same period we see all kinds of anomalies in views of the canon that I noted last time: even the NT canon. It’s another rhetorical dead-end for Jason.

It seems that Christians,

Catholics are now Christians??!! Progress!

heretics, and those who didn’t even profess to be Christians accepted the foundational role of scripture in Christianity while widespread disputes over church authority went on for centuries and continue to this day.

One reason for that, I submit, is that a book can be molded in many different ways: often according to the whims of the molder, whereas live, institutional authority of human beings entails a direct accountability that will always be rejected by significant numbers. This proves nothing, however, as to the truth or falsity of either thing. It’s quite amusing for a Protestant to even quibble about real or alleged differences in the early Church on ecclesiology, when one looks at what Protestantism did to same:

1) There was little disagreement among the fathers and early Church on apostolic succession, but Protestantism either ditched that or completely redefined it.

2) There was little disagreement among the fathers and early Church on binding apostolic tradition, but Protestantism ditched that and opted for sola Scriptura, which excludes it.

3) There was little disagreement among the fathers and early Church on priests, who presided over the Eucharist, where Jesus was truly, substantially present, but Protestantism ditched all that.

4) There was little disagreement among the fathers and early Church on bishops, who presided over regions, but Protestantism (save Anglicanism and a minority faction of Lutheranism and a few other redefined instances) ditched all that.

5) There was little disagreement among the fathers and early Church on the necessity of both local and ecumenical councils, but Protestantism ditched all that.

Etc., etc. In other words, the massive, revolutionary changes entailed in Protestantism are many times more momentous than any disagreements that can be found among the fathers or between Orthodox and Catholics. Even the Orthodox will give the historic papacy a preeminence in honor, and the evidence for the office and its importance overall is massive, whereas many Protestants (even still in their creeds to this day) dismiss him as the antichrist. That being the case, the significance of the supposed massive confusion Jason sees in the patristic period is put in its proper perspective. Jason sees a lot of problems there but he is blind to the far greater difficulties along the same lines in Protestantism. Nick on my blog again hit the nail on the head:

What’s unfortunate about Engwer’s approach to the Fathers is that it’s self-destructive, burning down the very edifice which supports him today. Tearing apart the fathers, making them look silly and untrustworthy, only can harm the one claiming to be Christian. Engwer’s approach is much like the Joker’s on The Dark Knight. . . .

The laughable thing was that Jason proceeded throughout as if there weren’t variations in the canon among Fathers (even though giving lip service to the fact). . . . he is at his ‘worst’ when he does this to the Fathers, making them come off as a bunch of individualists promoting all sorts of contradictory doctrines and thus as a whole untrustworthy and childish. Of course, using the typical Protestant stealth tactics, he can call them “Christian” on one hand while affirming they weren’t promoting a true Gospel on the other. . . .

It’s the standard operating procedures of the Reformers: toss out as many accusations as possible, hope some of them draw blood, and leave the Catholic to pick up the smear mess.

A Celsus, an Arius, or an Athanasius will be more concerned with scripture than with any other authority when discussing Christianity.

That was Arius’ method, because it was precisely the heretics who adopted sola Scriptura. Arius agreed with the Protestant rule of faith, and he did so for the same exact reason: if one can’t trace his beliefs back through an unbroken chain of apostolic succession and tradition (Arius, being a denier of the Trinity clearly couldn’t do that), then one must become a-historical and pretend to arrive at one’s heresies by Scripture Alone. Arius did that and his followers today: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christadelphians and The Way International, continue to do it. Church history is their enemy. JWs only utilize history in order to engage in wholesale lies about it, such as that Arius’ position was the original one, and trinitarianism was the corrupting innovation.

But Jason misleads his readers yet again by giving false information about St. Athanasius’ position on the rule of faith. He doesn’t accept sola Scriptura or even prima Scriptura, anymore than any other father does. They all reject that, and believe in the three-legged stool of Scripture-Church-Tradition. The evidence is overwhelming once again. I’ve written about St. Athanasius several times in this regard:

Jason asserts falsehoods with no evidence. We assert truth with great amounts of factual supporting evidence. To the extent that Athanasius supposedly believed in sola Scriptura, just like Protestants do (or closer to them than to Catholics), I myself believe it in exactly the same way. In fact, I got so sick and tired of Protestants playing this game with fathers (even in direct opposition to the consensus of their own historians), that I “proved” that I “believe” it too (!): with many “prooftexts” from my own words through the years.

That doesn’t rule out the existence of some other infallible authority, but it does say something about the level of evidence for one type of authority as compared to another. . . .

All it says is that Jason’s methodology leaves much to be desired.

12. Patristic scholars, as well as other scholars, often refer to inconsistencies between church fathers and within the writings of a single father.

Back to the extreme overemphasis on difference and ignoring of the massive common ground, which is what patristic scholars do. No one is saying these men were a bunch of clones; only in consensus about most Christian doctrines.

A given church father might have held multiple views of what the Christian rule of faith ought to be. Such inconsistency is understandable when we consider the sort of transitional phases of history an individual might live through.

People change their minds. For example, I changed from a nominally religious secularist to evangelical Protestant, and then changed my mind later on to become a Catholic.

Somebody might live part of his life during the apostolic era and part of his life after that era ends. A Christian might see the Council of Nicaea widely rejected at one point in his life, then see it widely accepted later. Etc. People often change their mind on an issue over time, upon further reflection. Augustine, for example, repeatedly acknowledges his own inconsistencies on some issues. Not only should we not assume that there was one rule of faith held by every father, but we also shouldn’t assume that each father held to only one rule of faith throughout his life.

What we assume is what scholars of these issues tell us was the case. We can cite them a million times, but Protestants like Jason will ignore what they say, and the evidence they set forth. The general consensus was to a rule of faith very much like the Catholic rule of faith today, but less developed, as we expect. What we don’t find is proto-Protestantism. Jason seems to think that every time a father mentions Scripture, this proves he is quasi-Protestant or a “real Christian” because he assumes that Protestants are the only ones who truly love and utilize Scripture. So it’s another false premise. I use Scripture in my apologetics as much or more than anyone I know. It’s the overriding theme of my approach. Does that make me a Protestant?

13. We have precedent for trusting a canonical consensus: Jesus and the apostles’ apparent acceptance of the Jewish consensus on the Old Testament canon. That precedent doesn’t rule out extra-Biblical authorities in the New Testament era, but it does add weight to the New Testament canonical consensus, weight that doesn’t exist for an alleged consensus on church infallibility.

He merely repeats the same falsehoods that I have dealt with. What Jesus and the apostles accepted, included the Deuterocanon. Yet Protestants reject that. So much for their “consensus” and accord with the early Church on that issue. The emperor is naked, and I am the one who has to tell him that he is. The Deuterocanon is the elephant in the room or the dark family secret. No one is fooled by this game.

14. We already have good reason to accept the Biblical documents.

Yes; because the Catholic Church gave them her stamp of approval and orthodoxy.

If we continue to have doubts about our rejection of church infallibility, we can continue to think about that issue while continuing to follow scripture at the same time.

We can do all kinds of things; doesn’t make them cogent or true.

We shouldn’t think of these things in an all-or-nothing manner. Life goes on. It’s not as though we have to suspend our more confident conclusions because of some other conclusions we aren’t so confident about.

In other words, no big deal. Minimalism and relativism made necessary by the incessant fragmentation of Protestantism means that we have to care little about many matters of factuality and truth. So let’s resolve to care less about theology and truth, so that we have less conflict in our own minds . . .

There’s good reason why Protestants, Orthodox, Catholics, and others agree about the New Testament canon, yet continue to widely disagree about other issues of authority, like church infallibility.

*

And about the canon of the Old Testament . . .

15. The article by A.N.S. Lane that you referenced addresses some of the issues I’ve discussed, but doesn’t address others. He doesn’t demonstrate that the view of authority that he attributes to Irenaeus and Tertullian (and others) was as widely accepted as the Protestant New Testament canon.

He doesn’t have to. Many historians attest to that. And none can be found who claim that the view was akin to sola Scriptura (except pseudo-scholars William Webster and David King, who publish solely with a rinky-dink operation and can’t even tell us what their full credentials are: yet are lauded by many anti-Catholics as the last word in patristics, regarding sola Scriptura).

He doesn’t discuss my point about the necessity of limiting Irenaeus’ comments to only some teachings, not all teachings. (The churches of Irenaeus’ day agreed about many things, but not everything.) He repeatedly, in the two notes you cited (notes 29 and 30), refers to Irenaeus’ comments in Against Heresies 4:26:2,

Why not let our readers see what St. Irenaeus states there?:

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. (IV, 26, 2)

Sounds like a big disproof of infallibility and Catholicism, doesn’t it? In one sentence, we see binding authority in the Church, apostolic succession, the episcopate (bishops), and infallibility (“certain gift of truth”) — and Scripture isn’t mentioned along with the four other varieties of authority. But everyone knows that Irenaeus was closer in spirit to Jason than he is to myself and Catholics. Who could doubt it?

but he doesn’t discuss Irenaeus’ comments in the sections that follow (4:26:3-5),

Just as Jason didn’t cite or discuss the passage above . . . but I’m here discussing all of the passages together, to give the whole picture.

where he says that Christians are to separate from bishops who don’t meet moral and doctrinal standards.

So Lane has learned the fine art of highly selective presentation and citation? Must have had contact with Jason: one of the masters of that . . .

All humor aside, Jason has, as usual, distorted what St. Irenaeus actually taught here. First of all, he is talking about priests (“presbyters”), not bishops. In the quotation above that I brought out, he contrasts them with the episcopate, which is the bishops. The Roberts-Rambaut Protestant translation (the standard 38-volume Schaff set) even proves this (for strictly English readers) in section 4: “order of priesthood (presbyterii ordine)”. St. Irenaeus says to obey the priests who “possess the succession from the apostles” (in other words, who are orthodox Catholics). He says to separate from heretics or schismatics, who by definition are not Catholics:

But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God— namely, strange doctrines— shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, (IV, 26, 2)

Worship at a Catholic Church: this is some novelty for a Church father to say? In other words, if he were here today, he would tell me to separate from a Protestant pastor if he doesn’t adhere to the succession of unbroken doctrine, and teaches heresy. He would recognize Jason as a heretic insofar as he espouses false doctrine. But he would recognize me as one of his own party: a Catholic.

In IV, 26, 3 he continues to berate these heretics and schismatics who are no Catholics, by referring to them as “Those, however, who are [falsely] believed to be presbyters by many, . . .” (my bracketed comment and italics). He’s not talking about Catholic priests at all, let alone bishops, as Jason claimed. He continues on in IV, 26, 4:

From all such persons, therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof, but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together with the order of priesthood (presbyterii ordine), display sound speech and blameless conduct for the confirmation and correction of others.

Those who are in the line of apostolic succession are the good, orthodox guys; those who don’t are outside the fold. He writes similarly in III, 3, 2: “those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings”. This is standard patristic ecclesiology and rule of faith, and classic Irenaeus. He reiterates that he is talking about (good, faithful) priests in IV, 26, 5: “Such presbyters does the Church nourish, . . .” He concludes that section:

Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, [namely,] from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things; and they increase that love [which we have] for the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets.

Truth comes from apostolic succession, not Scripture Alone as the only infallible guide and authority. Note that the good priests “expound the Scriptures to us without danger”: Scripture is understood within the framework of Church and orthodoxy, not by individuals on their own apart from the guidance of any Church: necessary especially when disagreements arise.

So what exactly does Jason think he has proven? What precisely in Against Heresies IV, 26, 3-5 supports his case over against the Catholic one? Once again (it gets tedious to keep having to point this out), context shows that Catholic doctrine is affirmed again and again, and Protestant doctrine opposed. Yet Jason comes away from the passage with the exact opposite opinion: how he thinks so is inexplicable, except if he uses his by-now trademark method of setting up straw men to quixotically smash down (which means, of course, that he has, at a minimum, understood little of the actual meaning of the passage).

He doesn’t discuss the ambiguous nature of Irenaeus’ view of the reliability of the church.

Probably because it wasn’t there. It is because orthodoxy is so well known, that heterodox priests can easily be avoided, at least by one who is in tune to the Church and her teachings, and obedient to her.

If some bishops can depart from the apostolic faith and are to be avoided,

As I have shown, Irenaeus was not referring to bishops in the passage under consideration, but to priests. But if a bishop did become a heretic, then any Catholic would be within his rights to avoid him, too: of course. That’s what Happened to St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom, after all: they were opposed (and/or deposed) by false bishops and had to take recourse with the authoritative popes of orthodox Rome.

then the location of the church led by the Spirit can change from time to time.

It’s where it has always been, and we know where it is: both now and throughout history.

Even if there’s to always be a church led by the Spirit, one that’s always correct on the core teachings Irenaeus mentions,

As there was meant to be, and in fact was and is . . .

the location of that church can keep changing, and it isn’t assured of always being correct in all of its beliefs.

That’s not true. The Catholic Church was always led by the Roman See (Peter and Paul having died in Rome). Anyone in communion with that See was part of it. Assurance of correct belief came from Jesus Himself, in His promise of the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church into all truth, and promises to the first pope, St. Peter, and to general biblical teachings on indefectibility.

As I said earlier, there’s a large gap between the sort of data we find in a source like Irenaeus and the systems of infallibility that are commonly advocated today by groups like Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Right. Funny, how we can’t find that whenever we go to these supposed passages of disproof that Jason suggests. We find it, however, in his bald assertions that have no basis in reality.

16. I wasn’t able to find one of the passages Lane cites in note 29. He cites Against Heresies 1:1:6. The editions of Against Heresies that I’ve consulted have only three sections in chapter 1 of book 1. There is no section 6.

I’ve found that the subsections are sometimes divided up differently. St. Irenaeus in I, 1, 3 makes a terrific comment (perhaps what Lane was referring to) that describes anti-Catholic mistreatment of Scripture (and also of the fathers) — like heretics of old he that was referring to — to a tee:

. . . they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations.

In other passages he cites, it’s unclear to me just what portion of the citation he has in mind or just what he thinks it proves.

I know the feeling well.

For example, he may be referring to the phrase “the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us” in Against Heresies 3:5:1, but it’s unclear to me what “permanent among us” means.

He is referring to permanent orthodoxy and/or the indefectibility of the Church. What else could it mean? The Church possesses the apostolic deposit and passes it down. Irenaeus explains that a hundred times all through his writing.

Does Irenaeus mean that there will always be people who will believe the doctrines he discusses?

Yes: Catholics: because the Catholic Church will preserve true orthodox doctrine.

Does he mean that the apostolic tradition, considered in itself, will always be available?

Yes (indefectibility). What is such a mystery? The truth is preserved in the Church permanently. I know it’s tough for a Protestant to accept, but I think it can at least be understood in concept.

The sort of ambiguities I’ve discussed above remain. I don’t fault A.N.S. Lane for outlining the history of Christian beliefs on issues of authority without addressing every detail that could be addressed and without agreeing with every source he cites or claiming to understand what every source meant in detail. But anybody who would cite a source like Lane’s article to justify belief in some sort of infallible church, not just to address the history of Christian beliefs about authority, would have to go into much more detail than Lane does.

Hopefully I’ve provided some of that detail. Whether Jason will adequately address all that I have raised is by no means certain, and unlikely in light of his past behavior in such debates. There is no in-between with him. He either splits before the discussion is anywhere near over, or he tries to wear the opponent down by relentless attrition, obfuscation, non sequitur, and sophistry. This one could go either way.

17. Lane says that he’s discussing Irenaeus and Tertullian for “The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church” (p. 39). But earlier sources don’t have to be as clear in order to have some relevance. The points I’ve made about sources like Papias, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and Celsus have to be taken into account, even though such sources don’t discuss these issues in the sort of depth we find in a source like Irenaeus or Tertullian.

I refuted (as far as I am concerned) Jason’s erroneous assertions about St. Justin Martyr in our 2003 debate on the Fathers and sola Scriptura at the CARM discussion forum. It is the first section (IX) of Part II of the debate. It’s no cursory treatment, either, but very in-depth. The entire section (including Jason’s words) runs 4,953 words. He had long since departed from the debate by then, so there was no counter-reply from him. Perhaps he would be so kind to you the reader, to offer one now, after nearly seven years.

Jason will have to make his argument from Papias, whatever it is. J. N. D. Kelly says little about him, but what he does mention is no indication of sola Scriptura:

A practical expression of this attitude was the keen interest taken in the apostles’ personal reminiscences of Christ. Papias, for example, did his best [Cf. Eusebius, hist. eccl. 3, 39, 3 f.] to discover His exact teaching by making inquiries of ‘the elders’.

It was no longer possible to resort, as Papias and earlier writers had done, to personal reminiscences of the apostles. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised edition of 1978, 33, 37)

When we go to Eusebius (III, 39) to see what exactly Papias stated, we find an explicit espousal of apostolic succession and authoritative tradition. He even contrasts oral tradition to written (as superior): “I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice” (III, 39, 4). Here is more from Papias or Eusebius describing him:

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders . . .

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. . . .

11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.. . .

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

How in the world does Jason think Papias helps his case? I’d love to see that. He can bring forth what he thinks is relevant from Hegesippus and Celsus. The former is cited several times by Eusebius, providing many interesting traditions, including about James and Jesus’ family. So he obviously feels that he is passing on apostolic tradition in those respects: and his details are extra-scriptural. Celsus was a pagan Greek philosopher, so Jason must feel that he bears witness in an indirect way to something that he thinks is a disproof of Catholic arguments. I highly doubt it, based on the frequent great weakness or irrelevancy of Jason’s arguments that I have interacted with.

18. Lane’s assessment of Papias is misleading in some ways. Though I disagree with Richard Bauckham on some points regarding Papias, his recent assessment in Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006) is far more detailed, documented, and accurate than Lane’s.

I’m not gonna go read all that. I’ve spent enough time on this as it is. Whatever Jason’s argument is involving Papias, can be presented anew, if he thinks it is worthwhile to consider.

19. Lane frequently confirms my assessment of the variety of views of authority that existed among the fathers, as well as my comments about how a single source is sometimes inconsistent with himself. See, for example, pp. 39-42 and notes 29, 41, and 49.

I’ll deal with individual arguments along these lines as they come up.

20. Lane alludes to another point I’ve made in note 29, when he comments that “But it must be remembered that Tertullian became a Montanist” and makes reference to how “the fathers could sit very loose to tradition when it suited them”. In other words, as I noted in my e-mail yesterday, commitment to scripture in the patristic era was more deeply rooted and consistent than commitment to various concepts of the church and extra-Biblical tradition, as is the case in our day.

This is the same vague, general-type argument I’ve already dealt with, repeated yet again.

This concludes the reply to Jason’s post proper. He also has a lot of additional material in the combox, that I will grapple with in Part IV, insofar as there are any new arguments brought forth.

Photo credit: St. John Henry Newman, 1844 [public domain]