Rome and Finished Revelation

I don't pull out of "the ether" any of my church history. I have given you historians and their histories as references but I doubt you have even looked at them Dr. William Jones "The History of the Christian Church"; Dr. Thomas Armitage "The History of Baptists; Dr. W.A. Jarrell "Baptist Perpetuity"'; Leonard Verduin "The Reformers and the Stepchildren"; Dr. J.T. Christian "A History of Baptists." These are all quite well documented with references.

Other historians commonly refer to the title "monks" when referring to those Catholics responsible for collecting and arranging materials for Roman Catholic History. I assure you I did not invent the use of the term in regard to Catholic church history.

 

Montanists

What is of interest is that the original sources from which Rome gathered information about the Montanists are questionable. No eyewitness reports of Montanus and his two prophetesses. The earliest condemnation of Montanus was by Appollonius who wrote 40 years after the Montanist movement began. Other accounts were written much later. Even Roman Catholic historians admit that the sources for the “extravegances” of Montanism are questionable in regard to their credibilty:

It seems on the whole that Montanus had no particular doctrine, and that his prophetesses went further than he did. The extravagances of his sect were after the deaths of all three; but it is difficult to know how far we are to trust our authorities. The anonymous writer admits that he has only an uncertain report for the story that Montanus and Maximilla both hanged themselves, and that Themison was carried into the air by a devil, flung down, and so died…….. As Apollonius wrote forty years after the sect emerged…… – Catholic Encyclopedia - Montanists

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia chooses to go on and report the “extravagances” as fact in spite of acknowledging that even they believed their own authorities were subject to doubt. They admit that Appollonius, from whence most of the damning charges against the person of Montanus are derived, occurred nearly 40 years after the movement began rather than any eyewitnesses. Eusebius confirms that Appollonius wrote 40 years after the movement began:

This same Apollonius relates, in the same work, that it was forty years from the time of that Montanus undertook his pretended prophecy down to the period when he wrote his work. – Eusebius, Ecclesiastial History, ch. V, section XVIII


Historians are conflicted whether Montanus and his two female prophets claimed to be incarnations of The Father and the Holy Spirit or merely used the common Old Testament prophetic first person when giving prophecies by the Spirit. Tertullian the most famous convert to Montanism was the defender of the most orthodox view of God prior to Athanasius and therefore would never convert to a group whose leader claimed to be God the Father or the Holy Spirit much less teach a perverted view of God. Other Montanus scholars believe that Montanus and his two female prophets simply spoke in the first person as was common with Old Testament prophets “Thus saith the Lord, I…..” rather than claiming to be either the Father or the Holy Spirit incarnate.

Augustus Neander, considered to be one of the greatest Protestant church historian says that Montanus did not start any new movement but rather gave the impulse to those existing everywhere within the apostolic church who were already in resistance to the worldliness creeping into the churches and that Montanus simply sparked the more primitive part of the church to return to more holiness and a more disciplinary state of the church:

“Montanus was hardly a man of sufficient importance, to entitle him to be placed at the head of any new and grand movement…….Thus Montanism points out to us kindred elements existing everywhere already; and for this very reason it was that the impulse, once given could produce such great and general movements; since the way had already been prepared for them in the course of the inner development of the church itself……Without the impulse given by Montanus, the whole movment, which produced such a stir and excitement in the minds of men, and which we may admit cannot be explained from his influence alone, would by no means have arisen (August Neander, General History of the Christian Religion, Vol. I, pp. 509-510)


Even Roman Catholic Scholars have trouble dating the time Montanus began his prophecies:

Bonwetsch accepts Zahn's suggestion to read "Quadratus", and points out that there was a Quadratus in 155 (if that is the year of Polycarp's death, which was under Quadratus), and another in 166, so that one of these years was the real date of the birth of Montanism. But 166 for Quadratus merely depends on Schmid's chronology of Aristides, which has been rejected by Ramsay and others in favor of the earlier chronology worked out by Waddington, who obtained 155 for the Quadratus of Aristides as well as for the Quadratus of Polycarp. Now it is most probable that Epiphanius's authority counted the years of emperors from the September preceding their accession (as Hegesippus seems to have done), and therefore the nineteenth year of Pius would be Sept., 155-Sept., 156. Even if the later and Western mode of reckoning from the January after accession is used, the year 157 can be reconciled with the proconsulship of Quadratus in 155, if we remember that Epiphanius merely says "about the nineteenth year of Pius", without vouching for strict accuracy. He tells us further on that Maximilla prophesied: "After me there shall be no prophetess, but the end", whereas he was writing after 290 years, more or less, in the year 375 or 376. To correct the evident error Harnack would read 190, which brings us roughly to the death of Maximilla (385 for 379). But ekaton for diakosia is a big change. It is more likely that Epiphanius is calculating from the date he had himself given, 19th of Pius=156, as he did not know that of Maximilla's death; his "more or less" corresponds to his former "about". So we shall with Zahn adopt Scaliger's conjecture diakosia enneakaideka for diakosia enenekonta, which brings us from 156 to 375!9 years. As Apollonius wrote forty years after the sect emerged, his work must be dated about 196. - Catholic Encyclopedia - Montantists


In an age of no television, radio or any other fast means of communication it is not likely that Montanus and his two female prophets actually were responsible for such a large movement that spread all the way to Rome and beyond. Montanus did not claim the gift of prophecy was general and for all Christians but claimed it was restricted to himself and to his two female prophetesses. He simply claimed to be a reformer calling the churches back to a more primitive and apostolic practice of spirituality and purity. Many historians believe it is these aspects of his work that ignited a reformation all over the Roman Empire.

We know the Montanist rejected infant baptism and practiced immersion and denied baptism until a person could personally respond in faith to the gospel. We know they held a higher view of church membership and church discipline.

Even Roman historians openly admit that it spread all over the Empire to even within the highest office in the church at Rome:

The sect gained much popularity in Asia. It would seem that some Churches were wholly Montanist…… A second-century pope (more probably Eleutherius than Victor) was inclined to approve the new prophecies, according to Tertullian, but was dissuaded by Praxeas. Their defender in Rome was Proclus or Proculus, much reverenced by Tertullian. A disputation was held by Gaius against him in the presence of Pope Zephyrinus (about 202-3, it would seem). – Catholic Encylopedia

Even Roman Catholic historians admit the movement continued beyond the times of the Novationists and even up to the time of the Donatist movement, other hisorians report it continued into the eighth century and overlapped in the same geographical areas with the Paulicians. The Catholic Encylopedia claims that Constantine and emperors beyond his time made laws against them demonstrating they continued:

The Christian emperors from Constantine onwards made laws against them, which were scarcely put into execution in Phrygia (Sozomen, II, xxxii). But gradually they became a small and secret sect. - Catholic Encylopedia

Now, I certainly don’t defend the supposed claims by Montanus and his two female prophets but there seems to be, even by Roman Catholic historians, some question as to whether the more extreme and “extravagant” accusations have any real factual basis to the whole movement at large. The Roman Catholic Encylopedia identifies them as "schismatics" and Origen was undecided whether to accuse them of heresy or simply being schismatic in character:

Schismatics of the second century...... Origen ("Ep. ad Titum" in "Pamph. Apol.", I fin.) is uncertain whether they are schismatics or heretics. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Significantly, the Roman Catholic Historians cite Protestant historians and their researches in developing their own chronology of their History (Ramsay, Waddngton, Zahn, Harnack, etc.). This is a frank admission that what they consider to be primary source materials are questionable in regard to their complete credibility.

Conclusion: The source materials for the more "extravegant" charges against the Montanists are suspect of credibility even according to Roman historians. The nearest account for the charges against Montanus occurred after his death nearly 40 years after the movement had begun. I have read several historical accounts on the Montanists and there is room to question the more serious charges made against the movement even if the charges made against the person of Montanus are true and even there it is a questionable "if."

 

Not thinking too clear are we? What do you think they are doing in this very article. Admitting the sources are questionable but using them anyway to paint a picture as factual! In regard to their enemies, when there is an option, they choose to paint them in the worst.

 

That is not true. There is a difference between abiding within Bibical principles (e.g. do all things decently and in order, etc.) and embracing traditions that contradict and conflict with the teaching of Scripture. The former is consistent with scriptures even though such things may not be spelled out in scripture while the other usurps the Scripture.

 

Again, they admitted their sources may not be trustworthy in regard to the extravagent charges against the Montanist but went full steam ahead anyway. I was providing evidence that secular church history can be interpreted differently than the slant by Rome. I am not inconsistent with anything I have said but simply demonstrated from their own mouths.

 

There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the broader Montanists movement, just like the broader Donatist and Novationist movements cannot be characterized by the personal view of one writer within the whole movement. Moreover, even Rome admits that it is difficult to make all charges stick.

Finally, the Baptist movement has embraced lots of differences in non-essential characteristics and at times temporary lapses into essential differences. The Free Church Movement as a whole is united on its denial that Rome is the true apostolic church. They are united as a whole that infant baptism is Biblical. They are united as a whole that Scriptures are final authority. They are united as a whole that gospel conversion precedes baptism. They are united as a whole in re-baptism of Catholics and thus called "Anabaptists."

In regard to the many accusations (anti-baptism, anti-clergy, anti-marriage, anti-Old Testament, Dualists, etc) there is reasonable evidence from time to time in the reports of Rome that such charges are primarily based upon the free church movement rejecting the Catholic version of these issues and therefore accused as opposing such things as interpreted by Rome. We have examples where the Cathari, Paulicians, Waldenses repudiated such charges in references supplied by Edward Gibbons, Robert Robinson, Neander and many others.

However, no one as yet has exegetically overturned my exposition of Isaiah 8:14-20 as Messanic and directly applied to the apostles. What we have shown is the unreliability of Tradition.

 

They reject that prophetic oral traditions were superseded by inclusion of them into inspired scriptures even though Paul claimed they never taught anything different than what he taught in every church and in every place and he sent Timothy to confirm that:

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Hence, Rome must assume that the 13 epistles of Paul do not constitute what he taught "everywhere in every church" but something different.

They reject Peter's assertion that written scriptures are "MORE SURE" than apostolic oral tradition and that they were cognant they were producing scriptures as they wrote:

2 Pet. 1:16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.........3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Thus they flatly contradict the clear messanic prophecy and apostolic application of Isaiah 8:14-20 as completion of Scripture as final authority to test all other sources of revelation and teaching

They bring uninspired tradition up to the level of "sacred" scripture declared as "sacred" tradition even though the only objective evidence is found in uninspired, error filled, contradictory, divisive so-called writings of the "church fathers." They do this through the mental gynastics of making the final authority the magisterium who in turn are in a process of finding out what that "deposit of truth" actually is within the error filled traditional records of the fathers. If the "deposit of faith" or oral apostolic tradition was passed on from person to person as "sacred tradition" as declared by Rome there would not be the need of church counsels, a magisterium, but there would be a consistent and constant transmission from the beginning right up to the present. The fact that they need counsels and a magisterium to disciper it demonstrates the fallacy of it and why it cannot possibly be regarded on the same level as "sacred scripture" much less be regarded as the proper interpeter of "sacred scripture."

I have never denied that they make the claim that their tradition harmonizes with Scripture but I have and do deny that their tradition actually is consistent with scripture. I do deny that there is such a thing as "sacred tradition." I deny there is such a thing as "the deposit of truth" in regard to oral transmission beyond the completion of APOSTOLIC scriptures. Apostasy from the truth is the record of the church fathers, not clarification of the truth. Confusion, contradiction and division is the record of the church fathers not "sacred" oral transmission of apostolic teaching.