Montanists (Baptist ancestors)

Hi. You seem to be well acquainted with the Montanist movement. I would like to ask one question. Is there any truth to the claim that Montanus regarded himself a prophet and that his two women prophetesses spoke in some gibberish? Probably Montanus himself also spoke some gibberish, can't remember exactly right now. Also I recall that they sort of "fell in the spirit" when prophesying.

Harald

 

I, for one, believe the Montanists had much more in common with modern Pentecostals than with Baptists.

 

Apart from emphasizing the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Montanists held the following beliefs and practices: a regenerate church membership; believers baptism, by immersion only, and re-baptized those who came to them from the "established" churches; holiness of life, opposing second marriages, laxity in fastings, and flight in persecution; church discipline, their creed stated "Against a mortal sin the church should defend itself by rightly excluding him who committed it, for the holiness of the church was simply the holiness of its members." They believed in trinitarian theology; the complete word of God, accepting all the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments; premillennial eschatology, looking for the soon return of Christ to set up His millennial kingdom on earth. These chiliastic views were also held by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. It may be that the unpopularity of the Montanists contributed to the demise of premillennialism in the early years of the church.

The Montanist churches were not popular with the "established" churches, so, much of what was said about them was unkind, to say the least. Recent historians in general have sided with the opponents of Montanism, and several charges have been laid against them. The most common charge was that the Montanists were "ancient holy-rollers." It is claimed that Montanus said he was the Paraclete, and that his followers claimed extra-Biblical revelations. Unfortunately there is no proof to support these charges. The spirituality and life of Montanist churches so contrasted with the formality and deadness of the main-stream churches, that such conclusions may easily have been drawn. If a Roman Catholic or High Anglican came to a Bible-believing Baptist church today, he would probably think it was very emotional too, what with strong preaching, and an invitation at the end!

The Lutheran historian Mosheim accuses Montanus of calling himself the Paraclete, but the translator of his history, McLean, adds the following footnote: "Those are undoubtedly mistaken who have asserted that Montanus gave himself out that he was the Holy Ghost" (Church History, Mosheim, Volume I, Page 188). Armitage concludes, "For this reason Montanus was charged with assuming to be the Holy Spirit, which was simply a slander" (Armitage, T.; A History of the Baptists, page 175). W. A. Jarrell cites Tertullian's explanation of an "ecstasy" and concludes that he probably meant nothing more than what David said- "My cup runneth over." Tertullian, referring to visions and extra-Biblical revelations said: "But truly according as the Scriptures are read, or Psalms are sung, or addresses are given, or prayers are offered, thence, FROM THAT MEDIUM are materials by which we are ASSISTED by visions." The context of this statement clearly indicates what we would call "illumination" today. Nothing "extra-Biblical" about that! It is generally admitted that the Montanist churches accepted the received doctrines of the "established" church - their only differences being that of emphasis and practice.

It is POSSIBLE, but not conclusively PROVEN, that SOME Montanist churches did hold to questionable or unscriptural practices, such as ordination of women. Some churches MAY have allowed women to preach because of their belief that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are dispensed to Christians of every condition and sex, without distinction. Triune immersion may have been practiced in some Montanist churches. Some of the Montanist Pastors may have remained celibate, but no conclusive statement to that effect can be found, however, it may have been the more practical precaution in time of persecution according to 1Corinthians 7:26-29 (compare to verses 8 and 9). They were accused of practicing harsh asceticism by those who lived very liberal life styles, and that they practiced harsh church discipline. It should be noted that each of these practices, even if true, are not unknown in some Baptist churches today.

The preaching of the Montanists had far ranging results. Tertullian was a noted convert to Montanist ideals, who helped to refine those teachings and left a legacy in North Africa (Tertullianists) which would later give rise to the Donatists. Several "church" councils were called against the Montanist movement, and it was finally officially condemned by the "established" churches. The influence of this movement may be seen in the Novatian schism, the Donatus schism, and through its contacts in Armenia and the rise of the Paulicians.

Several defenders among historians may be found for the Montanists, some of whom are cited here: (1) "The conclusion of an early historian, Dr. William R. Williams, is that it was hard to find doctrinal errors in their teaching. Their emotionalism stemmed from their belief that a true experience of grace is evident in the believers life, as many other teachers have stressed in much later periods of reform. (2) Dr. Dorner wrote of their movement that it was a democratic reaction of the church members against the movement to install church leaders as overlords in the church body. (3) Moller, contributor to the Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, wrote, "But Montanism was, nevertheless, not a new form of Christianity; nor were the Montanists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism was, simply a reaction of the old, the primitive church, against the obvious tendency of the day, to strike a bargain with the world and arrange herself comfortably in it." (Quoted from : Griffith, J. W., A Manual of Church History: Volume II, page 36).

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Say, brother, where did you get Brother Griffith's Manual of Church History? It's good to see his works being quoted. Brings back some good memories.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Say, brother, where did you get Brother Griffith's Manual of Church History? It's good to see his works being quoted. Brings back some good memories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Seminary Library.

 

The Montanists were just another of the many, many groups that were teaching false doctrine. For further information on this false teaching:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm

One of the problems I see with Montanus, was he, like alot of "New Age" and modern-day cults, is he claimed to have "personal visions" direct from God. Oh boy, here we go again!!!! Someone comes along and somehow thinks he is special and is receiving "visions" which of course, can't be objectively verified by anyone. Any lunatic can say they are receiving "visions" from God. For me, I rely on the revealed Word of God and not on the ravings of a lunatic.

Montanus also began to "prophecy." Same old pattern!!!! He attraced a couple of bored, wealthy ladies that became his "prophetesses". It is really getting deep now!!

Montanus claimed that since the commandments of Moses and those of Christ had failed, God was now "revealing" to him (of course) and his followers (brain-washed followers) a "NEW WAY." He claimed that his "revelations" were superior to those of the prophets of the Old Testament and to those set forth in the New Testament.
(Scandal of the Cross, page 79-80)

The problem with these groups is that you can usually find ... well ... SOMETHING that they teach that may have a tiny bit of truth to it,but overall, it ends up being just another MAN GLORIFYING doctrine that someone had "revealed" just to him. Personally I find it offensive and false and I claim NOTHING from that looney tune.
James2

 

Even when I was a Landmarker there was some within the movement uncomfortable with the Montanists. They seem at best to have more in common with modern day Charismatics and it is questionable whether they were more orthodox than the Catholic Metropolitan Churches of the 2nd century. I don't see where it is valid to say they were Baptists no more than we could say the Catholic churches were at that time.

 

It seems to be the same old problem, where we as Baptists use "infallible scholarship" as proof for the legitimization of Roman Catholic worldview and by extension it's theology.
Thank you Thomas for making it plain that these negative historicals of Baptist groups are given by their enemies. It is true that the overwheming majority of these negative actions CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED by those who decry or espouse them. This makes them, in the truth of this same "infallible scholarship", highly suspect and therefore should not be taken as truthful unless proven. Since none here in this forum, nor elsewhere, have done so, it makes good sense to side with what we do know, not upon what we don't. All of the historicals at access declare this group and others to be fundamentally the same, and that is Baptist. In fact it has been stated that usually one group is actually successive of another and/or the same group but under a different name.
As far as Montanists being more like Pentecostals, maybe the right thing to see and say is that the Pentecostals are like the Montanists/Baptists, since they (Montanists/Baptists)pre-exist them. We all must conclude that the church of Pentecost was a Baptist church. Just think the first Pentecostal/Spirit-filled church was a Baptist church. How's that for Landmark!
Here's a question...Why would a Baptist be against that which tends to prove the truth of Baptist Perpetuity? Could it be that such a one is really Catholic/Protestant? My reasoning is that Baptist Perpetuity proves and authorizes our verity. The destruction of Baptist Perpetuity has no other purpose than to establish the primacy of Roman Catholicism. Take it from me, I'm the aborted product of a Jesuit Seminary.
Your brother
John

 

Bro. John Willis asked,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why would a Baptist be against that which tends to prove the truth of Baptist Perpetuity? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because if the History is flawed it leaves us with egg all over ourselves. Landmark Historians to often link every dissident group from the Catholics as being Baptist. There is no proof of this. Most of these groups we have no Confessions of faith on what they believe. Whether the Montanists were Baptist type should only be a curiosity since the Catholic Churches themselves were fairly orthodox at the time and the Roman Catholic Church did not exist.

Some groups such as the Albigences, Ancient Celtic Churches, Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards and maybe even the Paulicians seem to have been Evangelical Christians in Pre Reformation times but there is no proof they were Baptist. The Waldenses were similar to the Anabaptists and Baptists though there is some belief they held to an loose episcopal form of government. The Anabaptists sprinkled, poured and immersed believers.

The Waldenses and Anabaptists were forerunners of the Baptist movement but there is no evidence to show a direct succession between the 3 groups.

Baptists came out of the Church of England by the early testimony of the early Baptists. Can anyone give a quote from early Baptists such as Smyth, Helwys, Kiffin, Spillsbury, or Bunyan that states a belief in Baptists coming from the Anabaptists or Waldenses? They were English dissenters who adopted Anabaptist Ecclesiology and that is all.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

The fact is that no one can trace the baptist church back to the time of the apostles, no matter how much wishful thinking goes into it.

Let's give the Catholic Church a little credit where credit is due. They fought, in the very beginning, alot of the really strange cults out there. Because they got off track doesn't mean they didn't fight the good fight for awhile.

The Montanists were a bunch of looneys, unchristian, false and not worth the time or effort to even debate the issue.

They are just like alot of groups today. One tiny bit of truth and a whole lot of falsehood. Instead of looking back centuries, we need to clean our own house from all the feel-good, Jesus loves everybody, prosperity message, self-esteem, psychological babble that goes on in the modern church today.
Doesn't anyone else get sick and tired of all the drivel that is preached in the so-called Christian church of today?

James2

 

Mark said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The history of our faith is hardly drivel. If not for these early Christians we'd still be enjoying mass is Latin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It must be pointed out that the Catholic Church of the first 400 years was hardly Roman Catholic. The papacy came into being somewhere between the 6th to the 8th century. When the early Fathers used the term "Catholic" (which means universal) they meant the Church was universal in that it is not aligned with any Nation, race or ethnic group. They were no more Roman Catholic than the Montanists were Southern Baptist. I don't give the Roman Catholic Church any credit. Distiction must be made in the term Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church since the terms are not synomous.

The Montanists had nothing to do with the exclusion of Latin in worship since Latin was becoming the common language of that time. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and the Anabaptists all jettisoned Latin in the Reformation. A study of Baptist Heritage is not drivel but the evidence does not exist to say the Montanists were Baptist or even "Baptist like forerunners" like we can say of the Waldenses, Anabaptists. The Montanists were just dissidents and what they believed depends on what secondardy source you believe. Only if we find an ancient confession of theirs can we say they were at the very most "Baptist like" but to say they were Baptists as we define it today has no existance until the 1600's.

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Who Are Unaffiliated Baptists?

1. We are a people whose system of faith predates the reformation by fifteen hundredyears and predates the day of Pentecost by three and one half years.

2. We are a people who have survived because of the promise Christ made to His churches that we would continue until he comes again and not because we are more militant than others.

3. Our record is one of having been persecuted but never persecuting others. Judgment and vengeance belong only to God.

4. We are a people who have never had any head or authority over us but Christ. We have no pope, archbishops, superintendents, presidents, apostles, home office, boards, ruling elders, presiding elders, standing committees or any other form of human authority over us.

5. We are a people who believe that the church is nothing more or less than a local assembly of baptized believers and is in no sense a "universal, mystical, invisible" aberration, nor is it a denominational conglomerate.

6. We are a people who feel we have no obligation or command from Christ to condone heresy or compromise any truth for the sake of unity or peace or numerical power. We choose to have no part in the "free spirit" of ecumenism so popular with the worldly "new age" movement being promoted by the humanists.

7. We are a people who believe that "whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." It is believers who are baptized and added to the local church. Church membership was never meant to be a means of escaping hell, but a means of faithfully serving the Lord.

8. We are a people who believe the great commission recorded in the 28th chapter of Matthew was given to the local churches and to no one else. We do not believe that a churches' responsibility to Christ can be "farmed out" to any other man or group of men or women such as a Missionary Society, Missions Board, Convention, Association, or Para- church organization (a term borrowed from ecumenism and Neo-evangelicalism and without scriptural support) operating independently of the authority of the local New Testament, Holy Spirit guided assembly, the local church.

9. It is not true that Unaffiliated Baptists teach that salvation from hell is only found in our midst and all others are doomed. Baptism and church membership come after personal salvation which may occur at any time and at any place anyone repents and trusts in God the Son for salvation.

10. It is not true that Unaffiliated Baptists believe that all men walk in darkness until they become Unaffiliated Baptists.

11. It is true that Unaffiliated Baptists believe that Christ was talking to his visible, local church when he called them the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). This was before the day of Pentecost, which most Protestants assume to be the day of the origin of the church. There is no record in the Scriptures of anything having its beginning on the day of Pentecost. It was on this promised day that the church was endued with power from on high (Luke 24:49). This promise also included the coming of another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to indwell the church as their "guide into all truth" (John 16:7 & 13). That promise also says the comforter would abide (remain) with the disciples for ever (John 14:16). It is true that He is still with his churches even now and is guiding them into all truth as He promised.

 

Thomas,

I understand what you're saying, and the kind of Baptist church you describe is attractive to me. But I've also seen the ugly side of a completely autonomous church--firing the pastor for any or no reason, power blocs who control everything in the church, etc. There is such a thing as a tyranny of the majority, and this happens in local autonomous churches as well as in bodies beyond the local church.

When the local church functions as a "bishop" or "archbishop", this has its on problems.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
A study of Baptist Heritage is not drivel but the evidence does not exist to say the Montanists were Baptist or even "Baptist like forerunners" like we can say of the Waldenses, Anabaptists. The Montanists were just dissidents and what they believed depends on what secondardy source you believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What you seem to have overlooked is that all churches were still doctrinally orthodox in the second century. Neither the Montanist schism of the second century nor the Novatianist schism of the third century were because of doctrine. Both the Montanist and Novatianist schisms could be callled the "church discipline controversy" or "the church purity controversy." As to their doctrinal beliefs, Dr. William R. Williams said, "It is hard to find doctrinal errors in their teaching." Moller, a contributor to the Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia said, "Montanism was, nevertheless, not a new form of Christianity; nor were the Montonists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism was simply a reaction of the old, the primitive church, against the obvious tendency of the day, to strike a bargain with the world and arrange herself comfortably in it."

 

Kiffin:
Have you or anyone for that matter, proven that the "..history is flawed"? We all know the answer to that don't we. NO! I don't think you've read the last post by Bro. Cassidy. If you did, or do in the future, I'm sure it would help you cope with your vehement dislike for anything that even remotely appears Landmark.
I agree truth is truth. Let's see how truthful Catholicism has been for the last 1000+ years, since she appears to be your rule for all things truthful and your rod of correction. Brother, I was a Roman Catholic and by the way trained, like a puppy dog, by the "Society of Jesus" commonly called the Jesuits. I attended their prepartory and their major seminaries. I had to physically qualify for the novitiate similar to the Marine Corps. That translates to running one mile in 6 minutes or less, clean jerk and press 300 lbs, survive with minimum rations for 7days and show competency in self-defense...along with OTHER things. What does all of that have to do with being a priest? It sounds more like preps for "special operations" than it does for anything that concerns Jesus. Why not...we were in essence Papal shock troops. We established the beach-head and the Franciscans came behind, mopped-up and established occupation. If there was any problem with that, the Dominicans came and "preached" the problem away.
Your statement on the start of Roman Catholicism is exactly what the Codex Canonii Juris (Code of Canon Law) says. It is also what I was trained to say if ever confronted by any "heretics", and that includes any one not Roman Catholic. This same truthful group denies any duplicity or responsibility for the murder of over 50 million of what THEY call Ana-Baptists during the middle ages. It refuses to dissolve the Roman Curia, The Holy Office, The Society for the Propagation of the Faith, The Holy Roman Rota, and The Holy Office of the Inquisition. All of which were, are and will continue to be, in the future, the perpetrators of their darkest or in their own terms finest hour the Inquistion. By the way Rome dates its beginning from Pentecost Sunday, it claims Peter as the first Pope, but openly acknowledges Gregory the Great as "The First Universal Pontiff". I'm sorry brother, The Roman Catholic Church sees and claims herself as being "Continually existant.."through the centuries and Baptists as one of those heresies that she tried and should eradicate. She is the one that calls the Montanists, Novatians, Paulicans, Bogomils, Waldenses etc. as Anabaptists. She sees all Christians, Roman, Greek, Russian, Protestants and otherwise as being her children and under her authority. But, it is ironic that every Catholic decreetal lists only the most pronounced anathema on anything identifed as Baptist. Even she claims that we were never from her. What is wrong with a Baptist that wants to make us something that we obviously are not? Forgive my long dissertation, but I just wanted to get some things said. All I can say is that Brother your information comes from a Roman Catholic source and is therefore highly suspect.
I would be joyed to hear your explanation of the events of the fourth century...you know the 300's AD. I'm sure it would be a blast from the past. We can just hear the explaining away of that group no one want to really touch...The Donatists. And by the way would you care to delineate for us what makes Constantine the Great so Great? Oh, don't stop there. Let hear about Augustine the Great also. Hummmmm, two "Great"s in one gap. Now that's very interesting. I believe James2 and you, Kiffin need to check and prove your sources. Try the Official Decreetals and Submission to The Holy Office from the Council of Nicea and the summations of its president Cardinal Hosius. That will really suprise you.
Baptist By God's Command
Your brother
John

 

Mark;
To be objective. Just because something came from the Catholic Church, or they fought some hersey, that doesn't mean it has to be rejected out of hand.
I reject most everything the modern-day RCC stands for. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I think they have gone way off base. My point was that they fought the Montanists and they were right for doing so. Same as any cult.
Being closer to the source doesn't necessarily make the doctrine more correct. We have the scriptures and the doctrine has to conform to that. Their is no need to try to trace the Baptist church back to the beginning.
James2

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]