Montanists (Baptist ancestors)

John asked,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Have you or anyone for that matter, proven that the "..history is flawed"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually Baptist Successionism has been proven over and over again to be flawed by such noted Baptist historians as Armitage, Vedder, Torbet and McBeth.

I hold to some spiritual kinship. I count the Waldenses and Anabaptists as part of my theological heritage but that does not mean I believe they were Baptists. They were simply forerunners.

Landmarkers to often like Carrol's Trail of Blood fill in the blanks where nothing is said. Carrol's history is not historical scholarship but is flawed in many areas (Like saying Mariolotry was developed at the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century which is ridiculous)and links Baptists to practically any group that rebelled again Catholicism. John Christian is more scholarly but his history still bends over backwards to try to find Baptists in Pre Reformation times.

The Montanists may have been Evangelical Christians but all we know about them comes from secondary sources. If the evidence is not there we should not fill in the blanks. I agree with Dr. Cassidy that Montanism and Novationism was a reaction to the Worldly attitude coming into the Catholic Church but I think it is a major stretch to call them Baptists.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
My point was that they [the RCC] fought the Montanists and they were right for doing so. Same as any cult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>James, it seems to me that you are not very well versed in ecclesiastical history. You state the RCC fought the Montanists, but that is simply untrue. There was no RCC in the second century AD when the Montanist schism occured! The Montanist schism began in 156 AD, and the RCC did not even begin in embrio form until 325 AD and did not reach its present state until the 6th century AD!

As I pointed out in my prior post, the Montanist schism was not over doctrine, but over church discipline. If there were no doctrinal differences, and you label those who held those doctrines as a "cult" then you have just branded all of Christianity a "cult!"

 

You are entitled to your opinion. It would probably be easier to prove that the RCC was around before the various Baptists churchs, but there is no point to it. Who cares.
Like I said before, it is the doctrine based on the bible that counts, not how long you have been around.
I read the 3-vol set on the "Early Church Fathers" and found them interesting, but not conclusive in anything. The "Fathers" are just like today--contradicting one another.

But why would anyone what to DEFEND the Montanists? They were a cult, plain and simple. You might find this site interesting:
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/baptists

I'm a baptist and not a Catholic. Everyone have a good day. Have to leave to attend classes at Trinty Bible Institute--A Independent Baptist Bible Institute.
James2
P.s. There were doctrional differences. I pointed some of them out. AS far as I am concerned, ANYONE today who claims to have "visions" and God "speaking" to them, other than through His word, is off in left field somewhere. That's one of the problems of the modern day church. A lot of people base their theology on "feelings" or "experiences" or "visions" instead of the Bible. I don't agree with that method and the people that do that now are wrong just like the people in history were wrong.

The Bible is the authority for doctrine. Not someone's indigestion, or feeling, or vision, or communication with "God." I really don't think you disagree with that. If you do, then we disagree.
James2

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

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

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
But why would anyone what to DEFEND the Montanists? They were a cult, plain and simple. You might find this site interesting:

P.s. There were doctrional differences. I pointed some of them out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, James, it seems you have made up your mind and you are not going to let a few simple facts change it. Your so-called "doctrinal" objections were dealt with in my prior post, but you seem not to have read it, so, if you are just going to ignore what others post, this discussion is a waste of our time.

I suspected you may be a bible student. I have been teaching for 27 years and often find it amusing how often my students think they know more about the subject than I do. That seems to be the primary failing of most novices.

 

Thomas Cassidy:
Well, I can take criticism, even if I think there was a bit of hyperbole involved. I did quote my sources and you quoted yours. Fine!! I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on the Montanists. I came across some of their teachings when I was reading a book about heresies in the early centuries. The founder of the Montanists was Montanus, a Phyrgian who appears to have been a priest of Cybele.
Montanus was expelled from the Catholic Church (or whatever the people on this board want to call that church) in 156 ad. Actually, Tertullian was considered an apostate when he joined the Montanists in 207.
According to "Scandal of the Cross and its Triumph" by Bob and Penny Lord 1992 -- Montanus claimed to have received a new "relevation" direct from God. (Here we go again. Reminds me of the modern-day charismatic movements) Since the Commandments of Moses and those of Christ had failed God was now revealing to him and his followers A NEW WAY.
My problem with their teaching is that he expected his "followers" to have blind obedience to him, personally, because he was receiving "revelations direct from God." Now don't you find that a little troubling?

Personally, I don't like ANY doctrine that teaches "personal revelation", or someone who says they had a "word of knowledge" or they "received" a prophecy, etc. I find that whole concept of experience and feelings replacing the doctrine written in the bible very troubling.

If the prophecy isn't written in the bible you had better forget it. I've been to charismatic churches where certain people get up and go on and on about the "word of knowledge" they received. Of course it is always the same people. I find that whole thing repulsive and unchristian. But that is just the opinion of a novice.

In ending this, what is the point of all this anyway? I don't think that group even exists today, and it wasn't important then, and certainly isn't now. Is all this interest because some are trying their best to trace the present day baptist church back to the time of the apostles?

I love the baptist church and I personally don't care when they started, as long as they base their doctrines on the written Word of God, the Bible.
James2
P.S. Out of respect for someone who has been teaching 27 years, I stand corrected, if my sources and information were in error.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

Once again: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Montanists were named because of the preaching of a man named Montanus. He had been a priest of the pagan cult of Cybele, but was converted to Christ about 150 A.D. Montanism began in central Phrygia (now called Asia Minor) in a town called Ardabau, but its teachings quickly spread to Europe and Africa. Montanism was found in Rome, and Lyons, France, in 177 A.D. Montanus began preaching in 156 A.D., and gathered many followers, including two women of prominence, Maximilla and Priscilla. Soon after the apostolic age, great changes began to occur in many of the churches. Some of these changes were: a drift toward ritualism; the rise of a clergy class; a lack of spirituality, and a developing laxity in discipline and church membership standards. Montanism was in reality a crusade to restore churches to their spiritual simplicity - to get them back to the New Testament basics. The Montanists were sarcastically called "Spirituals." Montanus laid great emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers and the churches, and declared that the clergy had no franchise on the Gospel. He was an enemy of worldly philosophy and religion. 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 1 Corinthians 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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Thomas Cassidy:
I read your post with interest and was not aware that there was even a controversy at all about the Montanists. My source said that the founder of the Montanists thought he was the Holy Spirit and that his "revelations" were superior to the Old and New Testament prophets.
The information you posted seems to contradict that by saying their was nothing extra-biblical. If that is the case, and your souce is correct, I stand corrected. I admit my source was a Catholic one, thereby might have been trying to put the Catholic Church in the best light and the Montanists in the worst light.
Thanks for the information.
James2

 

Kiffin;
I'm sorry but the writers that you listed NEVER PROVED that Perpetuity or Succession was false. They only gave their opinions, and in some cases with supporting data, that it was false. However, none denied the possibility nor veracity of such a conclusion. The works cited were authored by men who sought open unity with our detractors and persecutors. To do so, one must eventually 'realign' their world-view and ultimately their theology, in favor of those who's unity is sought. This is again another RCC tactical maneouver to inoculize any virulent opposition to overall RCC strategy...universalism/globalism/ecumenicism. The Vatican has not changed it's strategy nor tactics, overt and covert, in the last 1600 years. By destroying, invalidating or co-opting Baptist Perpetuity, the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church establishes its primacy and authority of all Christians. For all who scream about her primal correct doctrine, she initiated, by her own admission, the Nicolaitan heresy, which is perpetuated as clergy over laity in many of our churches. As we all know this heresy is found in the New Testament, not some later date centuries away. She always has been and always will be the Great Whore and the Protestants are her children. Remember a daughter will always follow her mother's example. And the Protestants have definitely done that. I still suggest that you read Thomas Cassidy instead of Augustine. By the way Augustine a Roman Catholic is the prime instigator in the Donatist vs. Catholic battles. Go to Benedict and Wayland or even the Donatists and see what anyone including the Catholics say about them. The Donatists are in that "Unbroken Chain" also but, I don't believe either you nor James2 would like to tackle them. It's too pure.
In the words of that well-known Baptist pastor of Abyssinia Baptist Church in New York city's Harlem, "Keep the Faith!"
Your brother
John

 

John,

None of the Baptists Historians with the possible exception of McBeth sought any sort of unity with Rome. Please spare me the Jack Chick propaganda of Rome being behind such ideas. They were not giving their opinions but looked at the testimony of early Baptists themselves. They built their thinking on the evidence that Landmarkers write off

The evidence of a chain link of churches or some sort of perpetuity of churches outside of spiritual kinship or teachings is not there.

 

Kiffin:
Jack Chick in my estimation isn't Baptist enough to use as a source for Baptist Origins. My data comes from direct experience with the RCC herself. On one hand Rome says that the data doesn't exist, your camp. On the other hand she says that it does exist, as proven by centuries of persecutions and the statements of her Cardinal Hosius, president of the Council of Nicea, which by the way was considered a general church council. Chick has nothing to do with his statements nor mine. Since you speak of evidence let the horrific testimony of the past centuries give some. Brother,Jack Chick barely even scratches the surface of the doings of the Church of Rome. Just this one issue shows her subtrifuge. Whether you like it or not, Rome intends to physically be the head of all Christians. For what other reason would Bible-believeing forever persecuted Baptists want unity with her, validate her histories and compromise their doctrine in order to not offend her. Here's the proof and documentation that so many here in this forum scream about. THE INQUISTION.......50 MILLION BAPTIST MARTYRS!! But,again please ask yourself why, Baptist, crusade to disprove Baptist Perpetuity. If it is a lie then it should have openly fallen through by now. Instead all we have is Baptists saying that we are liars and not God's Churches which is exactly what Rome openly teaches and has for centuries. How can you argue scholarship when "the foolishness of men" proves "the wisdom of God"? This human wisdom is worth nothing when it comes to God's business. Thank God that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. I know that there can be no other type of true church other than Baptist because, like it or not, none other can fit the bill. To believe so, means that Jesus lied or the RCC is the real thing. What do you really believe?
I would love to talk privately with you or anyone else concerning Catholicism vs. true Christianity from the point of being in it. You have my email address if you'd like to use it. Since the object of anti-Perpetuity Baptists, in this forum, is apparently to sway us from the faith once delivered unto the saints, and I won't budge, I'll just do as before and just lurk and watch and pray.
Your brother
John

 

Bro. John,

I do appreciate your zeal for Baptists principles and teachings. But,I think the crusade by many to disprove Baptist Perpetuity has much to do with correcting Landmarkism historical errors. As one who is a Anabaptist Kinshipper, I have problems with the Strict English Succesionist view that is held and taught by many also in that I believe that Baptist principles and even "Baptist type" groups often times sprung up in Pre Reformation times.

The Landmark view of Perpetuity however has not been the historical Baptist view of Perpetuity. Even the earliest Baptist historians, Crosby and Ivimey were not landmarkers though they believed one could find Baptists principles existing in many dissident churches in pre Reformation times. These churches may have been forerunners of us but that is all.

Much of differances between the Landmark Camp and English Successionists/ the Anabaptist Kinship Camp is more over the Doctrine of the Church. That is the core issue I do believe.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
The Landmark view of Perpetuity however has not been the historical Baptist view of Perpetuity. Even the earliest Baptist historians, Crosby and Ivimey were not landmarkers though they believed one could find Baptists principles existing in many dissident churches in pre Reformation times. These churches may have been forerunners of us but that is all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The above statement indicates to me that you don't have a clue as to what Landmarkism is!

 

Dr.C,

I spent 10 years as a Landmarker and graduated from a Landmark seminary and Crosby and Ivimey were not Landmarkers. They held to a Kinship view that is very similar to my view. If you wish to prove evidence otherwise I would suggest you give it rather than pontificating or at least clarify your view. A simple belief in a succession of Baptist principles or even a belief there were some Baptist type groups in Pre Reformation times is not Landmarkism.

 

Thomas C.,

Please explain your views about Landmarkism.

 

Hi, Lidia. Welcome to the Baptist Board and the Baptist History forum. I see that you are new, and if you haven't checked in yet at the "Welcome to Baptist Board.com" forum, I'd encourage you to introduce yourself to everyone there.

Second, Thomas can & will answer when he sees this, but in the meantime, you can read his comment on this in Views of Baptist Origins, page two (next to last post on the page).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lidia:
Please explain your views about Landmarkism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=16&t=000075 post #3.

 

To quote Dr. C,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 1. The church of Christ is a divine institution.

2. The church of Christ is a visible institution.

3. The church of Christ is located on this Earth.

4. The church of Christ is a local organization, a single congregation.

5. The membership of the church of Christ are all professedly regenerate in heart before baptism.

6. The baptism of the church of Christ is the profession, on the part of the subject, of the faith of the Gospel by which he is saved.

7. The Lord's Supper was observed as a local church ordinance, commemorative only of the sacrificial chastisement of Christ for His people, never expressive of personal fellowship, or of courtesy for others, or used as a sacrament.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will agree that is a fairly basic description of Landmarkism but fails to define the Landmark view of Church succession and it is possible for one to hold to a Anabaptist kinship view or even a English Separatist position of Baptist origins and hold to those positions since even some non Landmarkers could hold to all 7 of those positions.

A key view of Landmarkism is that visible churches of Christ have been in existant since the age of the Apostles.

J.R. Graves in referring to Protestant Churches,
the mother church of which they are branches, or her daughters?

Graves would not have agreed that even if a group of paedobaptists left the Catholic Church, came to a Biblical view of the Church and then rebaptized themselves by believers would have been a apostolic church though this is exactly what both the first group of Anabaptists and Baptists did.

 

Kiffin, once again you post your opinion as if it were a fact, and offer no support at all for it. Can you give us any documentation to support your assertion all baptists are descended from see-baptists?