Heresy Studies: MONTANISM

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Optimax Montanism:

The recurring event fueled by an intense love of and desire to be in the great outdoors of God's Creation which leads many to load it up and move it to The Great State of Montana.

I thought it was that, or a sect of San Franciscans who worshipped Joe Montana. See, they even made a statue of him:

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

this page says a little about it: Montanism

Quote:

"The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement looks back and sees a bit of itself in the Montanism of the second century. Montanism, however, represents an Achilles' heel to the Pentecostals: if it were a true movement, how can the gifts still be around when one of its members declared that "after [her], there will be no more?" Furthermore, why did the world not end in the second or even third century?

If we accept, therefore, that the Montanists were deluded by false spirits, why does the Montanist experience correlate so well with the Pentecostal/Charismatic experience of the twentieth century, with the emphasis on emotionalism, loss of possession of faculties, and the "utterance of the Spirit?"

The debacle that was Montanism thus demonstrates that the Spirit of God is not poured out in such a way that causes the high emotionalism and the "ecstasy" that has been purported first in Montanism and later in Pentecostalism. The Montanists help affirm the truth of the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

Since the experience of Montanism has been proven false by the passing of time, why should we believe that the experiences of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements fall into any other category when the same nature of experience existed in both groups? Therefore, it is evident that the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8 are not present today, just as they were not present in the second and third centuries CE."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Quote:

"The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement looks back and sees a bit of itself in the Montanism of the second century. Montanism, however, represents an Achilles' heel to the Pentecostals: if it were a true movement, how can the gifts still be around when one of its members declared that "after [her], there will be no more?" Furthermore, why did the world not end in the second or even third century?

If we accept, therefore, that the Montanists were deluded by false spirits, why does the Montanist experience correlate so well with the Pentecostal/Charismatic experience of the twentieth century, with the emphasis on emotionalism, loss of possession of faculties, and the "utterance of the Spirit?"

The debacle that was Montanism thus demonstrates that the Spirit of God is not poured out in such a way that causes the high emotionalism and the "ecstasy" that has been purported first in Montanism and later in Pentecostalism. The Montanists help affirm the truth of the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10

Since the experience of Montanism has been proven false by the passing of time, why should we believe that the experiences of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements fall into any other category when the same nature of experience existed in both groups? Therefore, it is evident that the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8 are not present today, just as they were not present in the second and third centuries CE."

we could ask the same thing about Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes and compare that to the "non heretic" church today, and come to similar correlations . so the question is, how can anyone be certain?

 

[child of Jesus]

i dont think i would say the Montanists were Gnostics. Tertullian was pretty hardcore anti-Gnosticism.

some parts of Montanism are alive today in the Charismatic movement.

i thought Tertullian bailed and became montanist???

 

[child of Jesus]

we could ask the same thing about Pharisees, Sadduccees and Scribes and compare that to the "non heretic" church today, and come to similar correlations . so the question is, how can anyone be certain?

hi Michael

at least we have a way of knowing what The Pharisees SAID...language.

 

[Optimax]

Lolz...oh Max...if only it was that we could all pack up our bags and go home. Unfortunatley though we're gonna have to see this one through to the bitter end.

And that bitter end is prolly gonna end up on the doorstep of a certain christian movement who have quite a lot in common with Montanism.

(Yes I know you guys like the outdoors )

 

[razeontherock]

Ah this is interesting. This must be why another poster referred to this group as 'ecstatics'.

Babbling and prophesying?

I'm not really interested in the politeo-religious-historic views of this heretic group but their practices can help us determine if this kind of thing is still present in modern Christianity.

You can tell them by theri fruit.

Yes and you can, and this is the sort of thing I wouldn't want to be "Discipled" by! I do think this info is still needed in the Church today, and much like Communion, individuals should check their own heart to see where they lie wrt to this. Our Lord has not left us comfortless ... He will give wisdom to those who ask, w/o upbraiding.

 

[razeontherock]

Since the experience of Montanism has been proven false by the passing of time, why should we believe that the experiences of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements fall into any other category when the same nature of experience existed in both groups? Therefore, it is evident that the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8 are not present today, just as they were not present in the second and third centuries CE."

This is where faulty logic goes too far.

1: Montanism being false in no way = no Spiritual gifts at the time.

2: An arm chair quarterback reading something does not mean "the same nature of experience existed in both groups."

You can tell them by their FRUITS. The Bible does not say you can tell them by their gifts! Don't go chasing (or avoiding) one known error, only to find yourself making up a new one.

Someone being moved in any way similar to Montanism, due to a spirit other than God, is going to have MASSIVE issues that are completely unrelated. Don't forget there is this stuff called "flesh," and over zealous people can avail themselves of that out of ignorance, w/o necessary having any such massive issues. BIG difference, and one would do well not to accuse the brethren; that's a 'manifestation' that is CLEARLY of satan!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

hi Michael

at least we have a way of knowing what The Pharisees SAID...language.

I believe i missed your point .

 

[child of Jesus]

I believe i missed your point .

. <

 

[Gregory Thompson]

. <

ah thank you

 

[Standing Up]

What is Montanism?

What kind of practices distinguish it?

Do we see the same kind of Heresies / practices in the modern Church?

Are you bringing some glasses to the party?

Montanism wasn't really about theology, but about the idea of on-going revelation.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The term Montanism may have fallen into disuse, but the practice continued. LDS is a recent example. Moving back in time, we see the Church put Tradition on par with scripture as another example. IOW, it's the idea that there is something else out there necessary for us to know about to somehow complete us as Christians. The apostles left something out of their writings and it's up to the Montanist spirit in whichever group (EO, RC, P, LDS, JW, etc) to teach us the full truth.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Me too.
Never understood that thang......
Where is TraderJack when we need 'im

http://www.christianforums.com/t7299692-106/#post49103778
http://www.christianforums.com/t7299692-14/#post49106010

I've seen those that compare Montanism to the modern Pentecostal movement, and they are completely off base.

Montanus and the Montanists claimed just as Rome does that the Holy Spirit spoke exclusively through Montanus and his followers(ie-Magesterium).

Orthodox Pentecostals make no such claim at all, quite the contrary.

So, the claim is categorically erroneous.

Actually, when the Ulrecht Catholics, "Old Catholics" split from Rome over the dogma of papal infallibility, one of the charges leveled against Rome was the heresy of ultra Montanism, because the pope declared that when declaring dogma and teaching the church, that the pope was the sole, exclusive conduit of the Holy Spirit, just as Montanus claimed.

Actually, when the Ulrecht Catholics, "Old Catholics" split from Rome over the dogma of papal infallibility, one of the charges leveled against Rome was the heresy of ultra Montanism, because the pope declared that when declaring dogma and teaching the church, that the pope was the sole, exclusive conduit of the Holy Spirit, just as Montanus claimed.

That Catholic Church does not say that the Holy Spirit cannot work with or speak through a layperson. What a person says cannot be considered authoritative.

There is a big difference from me saying that I had a moment where I thought the Holy Spirit was working or speaking through me versus me saying that I am a prophet from who the word of God comes.

 

[Chesterton]

The apostles left something out of their writings and it's up to the Montanist spirit in whichever group (EO, RC, P, LDS, JW, etc) to teach us the full truth.

Ah, pulling a CaliforniaJosiah.

 

[Standing Up]

That Catholic Church does not say that the Holy Spirit cannot work with or speak through a layperson. What a person says cannot be considered authoritative.

There is a big difference from me saying that I had a moment where I thought the Holy Spirit was working or speaking through me versus me saying that I am a prophet from who the word of God comes.

It's not that the Spirit doesn't continue the work, but that what someone (pope, patriarch, pastor, LDS, RC, EO, P, etc) says is the gospel truth, as on par with the 'it is written'. Yes, we need leaders, but not new revelation. Canon is closed.

Hebr. Times past God spoke through prophets (OT). But now God speaks through His Son and His Son left instructions for the apostles to write it down.

 

[jckstraw72]

i thought Tertullian bailed and became montanist???

he did, im just not sure it would be right to identify Montanism with Gnosticism.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Are you bringing some glasses to the party?

Montanism wasn't really about theology, but about the idea of on-going revelation.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The term Montanism may have fallen into disuse, but the practice continued. LDS is a recent example. Moving back in time, we see the Church put Tradition on par with scripture as another example. IOW, it's the idea that there is something else out there necessary for us to know about to somehow complete us as Christians. The apostles left something out of their writings and it's up to the Montanist spirit in whichever group (EO, RC, P, LDS, JW, etc) to teach us the full truth.

You are working on the false assumption that Christianity began as sola scriptura. Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th Century by the Reformationists.

Christ told the apostles to go out and teach/preach to the whole world- not write a few books and a bunch of letters to guide Christianity for all time. As we can see in scripture they appointed people to different positions to continue to work of teaching and preaching the Gospel.

The New Testament is made up mostly of bits of communication between communities that were preserved. Teaching and preaching that could not be done in person for whatever reason. The Gospel of Luke begins as an account for written for a man named Theophilus, Paul's letters go to particular communities while he is in another preaching, et cetera.

The Catholic Church continues to preach just as it had done from the beginning, even before Paul wrote his letters or the Gospels were written down.

To start on the basis that Christianity was and should be sola scriptura, that from the Church to 'teach' is usurping the sola scripture we were supposed to be following is completely contrary to history and even scripture.

 

[jckstraw72]

Are you bringing some glasses to the party?

Montanism wasn't really about theology, but about the idea of on-going revelation.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The term Montanism may have fallen into disuse, but the practice continued. LDS is a recent example. Moving back in time, we see the Church put Tradition on par with scripture as another example. IOW, it's the idea that there is something else out there necessary for us to know about to somehow complete us as Christians. The apostles left something out of their writings and it's up to the Montanist spirit in whichever group (EO, RC, P, LDS, JW, etc) to teach us the full truth.

Orthodoxy makes no claim to know anything beyond the Apostolic deposit of faith, but somehow i think you already knew that and decided to ignore it.

 

[Standing Up]

Orthodoxy makes no claim to know anything beyond the Apostolic deposit of faith, but somehow i think you already knew that and decided to ignore it.

Scripture, right?

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

Christ told the apostles to go out and teach/preach to the whole world- not write a few books and a bunch of letters to guide Christianity for all time. As we can see in scripture they appointed people to different positions to continue to work of teaching and preaching the Gospel.

The New Testament is made up mostly of bits of communication between communities that were preserved. Teaching and preaching that could not be done in person for whatever reason. The Gospel of Luke begins as an account for written for a man named Theophilus, Paul's letters go to particular communities while he is in another preaching, et cetera.

The Catholic Church continues to preach just as it had done from the beginning, even before Paul wrote his letters or the Gospels were written down.

To start on the basis that Christianity was and should be sola scriptura, that from the Church to 'teach' is usurping the sola scripture we were supposed to be following is completely contrary to history and even scripture.

Surely you jest. Montanism to the core. Roman Catholicism does not preach just as the Church had from the beginning; it developed doctrine, new revelation, versus faith once delivered. C'mon let's be realistic here. You say it yourself, NT is just 'bits of communication' preserved.