Sometimes Truth makes Love hurt
"You are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth" Jn 8:40

Answers

Actually Link.....if you will study Montanism without your "bent to charismatic" glasses on....you find very clearly that the Montanist were the catalyst that moved the early church to close the Canon. It became apparent to all that "such an open ended view of revelation such as Montanist was presenting was in fact a very dangerous view." Thus the canonization process began. See David Ewert, "From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations." (A non-Christian Church writer by the way.)

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Jon.....

I really don't know who you are responding to...but I think your chronology may be a little off.

It is QUITE FEASIBLE that people in 150 A.D. were very aware of the "true gifts" (as you put it).

Since the gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles hands.....and since John was the last surviving apostle in approx. 96 A.D.....it is quite possible...and very probable that he bestowed the gifts through the laying on of hands shortly before his death.

If that be the case....then those who lived in 140-150 A.D. would only be approx. 60-70 years of age.

Historically speaking, this whole issue works out chronologically as per the development of the canon.....because if memory serves me correctly.....the first official list of canonical books (the Muratorian Canon) came out in 170 A.D.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2000

This study has a number of problems with it. One problem is a major historical error made right from the beginning. The author writes that Pentecostalism is a revival of Montanism, that Montanism was a revival of supposed spiritual gifts after the gifts had ceased, and that Christians rejected these miracles.

That is fudging over the facts. Many early Christians did reject Montanism but they believed the Montanists gifts to be FALSE, and their own gifts and mriacles to be REAL. Ireneaus lived in the late 100's and early 200's. He wrote of spiritual gifts that occurred in his own day. He wrote about these in a book entitled Against Heresies. This quote is preserved in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, written in the 300's.

Also in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History is an account of an orthodox Christian having a debate with a Montanist after Montanus and two the famous prophetesses associated with him had died. The Montanus said that these two women were prophetesses, just as Philip's daughters in the book of Acts. The orthodox Chrisitan challenged the Montonist, asking why they did not have prophecy among them at that time. Prophecy still continued in the church, the Christian argued, but had ceased among the Montanists. The man said the apostle [Paul apparently] taught that prophecy would continue until the Lord returned. (Apparently an early interpretation of I Corinthians 1, 13, Ephesians 4 or some other passage.)

I Corinthians 12, a passage cited buy the author, contrary to the author's reasoning, does not say that the purpose of the 9 gifts was confirming the word. In fact, this idea does not show up in the passage. The purpose menitoned in this chapter is edification.

Jude 3 certainly does not prove that the Bible replaced miracles. Jude tells us that the faith was once delivered to the saints. The gospel had been once delivered to the saints ONCE way back early on, and miracles still continued on after the gospel had been dleivered to the saint. Paul had the gospel. It had already been delivered. yet he kept on doing miracles.

The fact that Hebrews 2 says that the gospel was confirmed among the Hebrews with signs wonders and miracles, a verse the author refers to , does not say anything about the gifts ceasing. Of course doing miracles confirms the word to those who see the miracles. This is one way God operates that we see in scripture. There is still a lot of gospel preaching to be done, and a lot of room for the working of miracles.

Notice that in this verse the word was 'confirmed' TO THEM with signs and wonders. They saw the signs and wonders, and it was evidence to them. They didn't just read about the apostles doing signs and wonders. They didn't just hear the apostles talk about Jesus doing signs and wonders. They saw signs and wonders themselves. If signs and wonders confirm the Bible in general, the way the author seems to believe, how is this the same as Herbews 2? If signs and wonders confirmed the Bible, why did they continue into the ministry of Paul. The gospel had already been confirmed among the Hebrews, as this passage says, with signs and wonders. Why did the gospel continue to be 'fconfirmed' to the people groups it reached? Why did the Samaritans see signs and wonders? Why the Lyaconians? Why did the Ephesians see signs and wonders after the gospel had already been 'confirmed.' The confirmation effect of miracles has a strong impact on those who see the signs and the effects of miracles. The Bible does not teach that when the canon was completed, or all the information to be put in the canon was delivered, that miracles would cease. The gospel had already been once delivered to the saints, yet miracles continued on and on.

>>>B.Scriptures are all sufficient: 2 Ti 3:16,17; 2 Pe 1:3, Jude 3<<<

Jude 3 has been dealt with above. It is a good example that the gospel had already been delivered prior to the finishing of the canon.

The scriptures are not 'all sufficent' in every sense of the word. The Bible does not teach that it is all-sufficent. James says 'But be ye doers of the word and hearers only.' If one has a copy of the Bible, and doesn't obey it, what good does that do him?

If one has the Bible, and doesn't have faith, what good does that do him? If one has the Bible, and doesn't have the things mentioned in the Bible, like love, hope, etc. what good does that do him?

We as Christians not only need a copy of the Bible, we need the things the Bible tells us about. We shouldn't say "I have the Bible now, I don't need any of the things mentioned in the Bible."

We can't say 'I have the Bible. It is all-sufficent. Therefore I don't need water. I don't need to be baptized." Is that scriptural?

What if someone says, 'I have the Bible, I don't need the Holy Spirit' or 'I have the Bible, so I don't need the gifts of the Spirit.' Is that Scriptural? of course not. The Bible does not replace miracles, and the Bible does not teach that it's purpose is supposed to replace miracles. The author of the article above starts from the presupposition that the Bible replaced miracles. But none of the verses he quotes show that the Bible replaced miracles.

In fact, the Bible gives us instructions for how to practice certain gifts, tongues prophecy, and interpretation in a meeting. There are no instructions to sit and listen to one pulpit minister week after week. Rather, there are instructions for taking turns and edifying one another with gifts.

Why would the Bible replace its own teachings? Why would the completion of the Bible make it's own content invalid. This is an unreasonable view that comes from eisegesis, rather than exegesis.

The author of the article above writes,

>>>>A.Spiritual gifts were always transmitted through the laying on of an apostle's hands:<

This statement is clearly false. The Bible shows that gifts could be given through the laying on of apostles hands. But it does not teach that this is the only way they are given. Paul actually teaches that gifts are distributed according to the will of the Spirit. In I Corinthians 12:13, Paul writes for the one who speaks in a tongue to pray that he might interpret. Here we see Paul encouraging someone to pray for one of the '9 gifts of the Spirit.' Ntoice he doesn't tell the person to go find an apostle, or pray for an apostle to come and lay hands on him.

The author of the article refers to the fact that Paul wanted to impart spiritual gifts to the Romans. But if we look at the whole book, we see that the Romans already had gifts without Paul having laid hands on them. They had prophecy, teaching, etc, as seen in Romans 12. So while they could receive some gift through Paul, they also received gifts without Paul.

We also see that Timothy received a gift accompanied by prophecy with the laying on of hands of the ELDERS. This charisma was given to Timothy through elders hands. Timothy had a gift in him given with the laying on of Paul';s hands as well. But this shows us that God can use elders to impart gifts as well if He so chooses.

So how does God give gifts according to scritpure?

7 The Spirit distributes them as he wills 7 In answer to prayer (I Corinthians 12:13) 7 Through the laying on of apostle's hands 7 Through the laying on of elders hands

God can give out gifts 'according to His own will' with or without elders or apostles being present.

The author of the article wrote,

>>>>2.Acts 10 to first Gentile converts (Cornelius' household)

a.God deliberately made an exception to rule: Ax 10:44 (Amazed)

b.To show God himself approved of Gentile converts: Ax 10:34; 11:15-1<<<<

Here we see a clear example of exegesis. The Bible just does NOT teach that gifts were only given ONLY through the laying on of the apostles hands. It does show examples of gifts being given through the laying on of the apostles hands.

The author of the article takes PART of scripture-which shows gifts given through the laying on of the apostles hands, makes a RULE out of it. Not a rule from the Bible, but his own rule that he reads into the Bible. Then when he finds something in the Bible that shows his rule to be wrong, he calls it an 'exception to rule. This type of eisegesis, reading one's own ideas into scripture, should be avoided.

>>> a.God deliberately made an exception to rule: Ax 10:44 (Amazed<<<

This is very misleading. Look at the passage. They were amazed that God poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles. The Bible does not say that they were amazed that the Gentiles received gifts without the laying on of hands of the apostles. In fact, the Bible does teach up to this point that gifts were ONLY given through the apostles hands. We should believe the reason the Bible gives for why they were amazed, not believe the reason this author makes up for why they were amazed.

in fact, Acts 8 was a bit of an unusual event. The gospel was going to a new,. not fully Jewish people group, and the apostles came in to minister to the Samaritans during this transition.

The author writes,

>> 1.Apostles were formal eye witnesses of the resurrected Christ.

a.Twelve: Ax 1:21-26; Paul: Ax 26:15-18<<

These passages do not prove that all apostles were eye-witnesses. The Acts passage list requirements for taking the position of one of the 12, not apostleship in general. Paul did not meet these requirements, not being with Jesus from the time of John's baptism. Paul did see Christ, and he was taught by Christ rather than men, but we do not know if this is the case for other paopsltes like Barnabas (Acts 15:15.) The term 'apostles of Christ' is also used in reference to Silas and Timothy. Paul may also have included Apollos as an apostle In I Corinthians 4.

Barnabas may have known Christ before the resurrection. We do not know. it is unlikely that Timothy was an eye-witness of the resurrection, unless he had a vision like Paul did.

The accusatory comments about Pentecostals don't' prove anything. Quoting a verse about false prophets, and then accusing someone of being a false prophet does not prove that the person is a false prophet. One could just as easily quote 'having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof about the author in an accusatory manner. The article is full of assertions without proof.

The author makes some disturbing statements:

>>>Revelation completed. Word copied, transmitted and distributed by natural means, unaided by God.<<<

Even if we are doing something mundane, like giving someone a copy of the Bible, we still do these things with God's help. God has worked in His sovereignty on a number of occasions to get Bibles into certain places like China.

We don't do the work of God successfully without the gifts of God working in us. God's grace is always at work.

Here is another disturbing statement:

>> 3.Christ chose them to be pre-eminent above all others: 2 Cor 5:5; 1 Cor 12:28<

Apostles act as ambassadors and the gift is 'highly ranked' in terms of edifying the body. But in ALL things CHRIST is the have the pre-eminance, not the apostles. Jesus told the apostles that to be the greatest, they were to be the servant of all. The apostles were not to exalt themselves above other people. They had to remember that 'all ye are brethren.'

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Sorry for the double post. I had some problems accessing the server.

Btw, on Montanists, one scholarly source said to carefully consider what you read about Montanists, since the only writings about them are written by their opponents. The Montanists lived in a time when it was common for there were city bishops over presbyteries, and liturigcal meetings. they were against the institutionalization of the church. The pervious generation, between the apostles and the Montanists, knew of prophets, true and false, traveling around and encouraging churches. Over time, most of the church ministry came to be centered in a clergy group- the priests, with some minsitry being given to deavons. The Montanists were against institutionalization, and so many of the bishops of course opposed their views.

Tertullian wrote a lot of writings which are still studied by Christians to this day. He would probably be called 'St. Tertullian' if it were not for the fact that he joined with the Montanists. Tertullian is probably one of the patyristic writers that many RM people really like. If I remember correctly, he believed that Mary was not a life-long virgin, and did not believe in infant baptism.

What exactly was the Montanist heresy? I think that many Christians who opposed it opposed it as a 'heresy' because they felt it caused division- the original meaning of heresy. I haven't read any patristic writings accusing them of being heretics because they believed in gifts of the Spirit being in operation. There are many writings from 'orthodox' saints in the early centuries which make references to various gifts of the Spirit, including prophecy.

So what was the big contraversy about Monstanism about? It is said that the bishop of Rome actually approved the Montanist 'revivals' until he was persuaded otherwise by someone speaking against it. I've read that Augustine did not believe in miracles occuring in his day when he was younger, and even wrote words to that effect. However, in his later years he changed his mind after being witness to a number of people who were healed when, I've read, Montanist revivals came through the area.

I wonder how sharp the distinctions between Montanists and the mainline congregations were at this time.

The main chareges I've read against Montanus is that he and his prophetesses were prohpesying such things as the New Jerusalem being set up in Phrygia. The argument by some against him seemed to be that the prophecies were not from the Holy Spirit.

On the one hand I've read that Montanists were against going to the shows and such things. But one charge against some later Montanists were that they wore make-up, gold, and ministered for money.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Danny,

It had been a long time since I read about the Montanists. I'd read bits and pieces in Eusebius' writings and elsewhere. Britanica actually has a pretty good article on it. Most heresies focus on a particular doctrine. The thing with Montanism is that many Christians rejected it because they did not believe the prophecies were from God, and also because Montanist challenged the authority of the bishops, apparently.

The article said that Montanus prophesied that the New Jerusalem would descend in a certain area in Phrygia, which is nowin modern day Turkey. The Britanica article did point out that Christians did believe in the gift of prophecy. That was not something new. This is pretty obvious from reading patristic writings. This was a major error in the article I was addressing. There were gifts of the Spirit in the church at this time.

I can see why Montanism and various heresies would have caused many to push for a definite canon of scripture to be accepted.

There were other groups that also had rival congregations outside of the mainstream church as well.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Dwuane good study, to bad it is faulty and incorrect. Your conclusions are based not on biblical principle but on man made reasoning and assumption.

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Anthony,

First of all, my name is spelled D-u-a-n-e.

Secondly, those were not my conclusions, I just posted them in order to initiate a scholarly response, of which Link Hudson has responded appropriately. This will be helpful to me as I compare his answers (and the propositions I posted) with Scripture.

Thirdly, short pithy remarks such as yours ("to bad it is faulty and incorrect. Your conclusions are based not on biblical principle") do nothing to enlighten or contribute to the discussion.

If the conclusions are "faulty" then say why. If they are "not based on biblical principle" then show me why. Your sayin it don't make it so.

Thank you, Link Hudson, for your contribution.

Anthony, (I say this in love) thanks for nothing.

:)

-- Anonymous, August 29, 2000

Duane,

In all fairness, how was AKelley to know that you didn't write that article yourself? I suspected you didn't because I had seen it on a web page earlier. The message is pretty accusatory and antagonistic, and I can understand why someone would give a pithy remark to a message written in this style.

-- Anonymous, August 30, 2000

Fair enough. And the misspelling could have been a typo. "Love believes all things..." I will take this opportunity to admonish all of you however to proofread your posts before clicking "submit"...

This being said Link, nonetheless, I ask you: Why didn't you respond with a pithy answer?

-- Anonymous, August 30, 2000

If you haven't noticed, I tend to be long-winded, though I thought about making some pity remarks on the other study.

-- Anonymous, September 01, 2000

My first question was: how is this possible???

The fact that the church in 150 AD condemned this movement (identical to modern Pentecostalism) is STAGGERINGLY SIGNIFICANT! They had first hand memory of the TRUE Charismatic gifts AND COULD SEE THE DIFFERENCE!

How could anyone in 150 AD have first hand memory of something that happened in 30-60AD? Unless there were LOTS of 100+ year old people back then, that statement is rather absurd at face value. Sounded good tho :)

A historical axiom to keep in mind is that "history is written by the victors." Roman Catholicism is condemned by modern Protestants/Reformers/etc, but then they look back to the "ancient writers" who were of RC persuasion! Baptists, Lutherans, and even yourselves were condemned as and are "heretics" under RC law. Be VERY CAREFUL when reading ancient sources. They weren't these unbiased historian types. These writings were propogated to COMBAT heresies....they were TRACTS written to indoctrinate. So do not use them as being authoritative of something.

-- Anonymous, September 01, 2000

Another thing to notice is that Montanism wasn't so contraversial at first because the Christians at that time believed in prophecy. This is what I get from reading Eusebius _Ecclesastical History_ and the author of the Britanical article on Montanism pointsout the same thing.

According to the existing sources (of those who opposed Montanism) the Montanists believed, based on prophecies given, that the New Jerusalem was going to descend in a certain place in Phrygia, modern day Turkey. Also, the ecstatic way the Montanists prophesied seemed unorthodox and different to many Christians. Montanus apparently did not submit to a bishop in the area, and eventually the Montanists set up their own church structure.

-- Anonymous, September 01, 2000

Danny,

A major flaw with the article is the presupposition that the problem the church has with Montanism was that it was supposed to be a revival of the gifts. The church furrently had gifts of the Spirit, and reocognized them as valid. The churches did not reject Montanism because they did not believe in prophecy, or because they were cessationists. Some took issue withthe ecstatic way the Montanist leaders were said to have prophesied. Other sources say that there was a prediction that the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia. How did that square withthe scriptures that the church had in her possession? One thing that got the movmenet in trouble is that they did not submit to the bishop in the area. Even after canons were compiled, there was still prophecy in the church. There have been gifts in the church since this time, though less is written about them in some times than in others.

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2000

I'd like to quote something from the original post, and comment on it:

>>> walks up to you and says, "you got to wear red sox to be saved." Your first question would be, "Where in the Bible does it say that?" He replies, "this is new revelation!" You are not convinced because you have no way of being sure he really is a prophet from God. But then he takes you down to the hospital and heals everyone inside! Each time he heals another, he says, God is confirming to you that my word, "you must wear red sox" is true! Having witnessed this, you would have no choice but to conclude that God had added the requirement of wearing red sox! The Miracles confirmed the message of the man to be genuine!<<<<<

This line of reasoning is not Biblical, and it is dangerous to think this way. There are witchdoctors who can do supernatural things thorugh demonic power, just as their were magicians in Egypt who could duplicate turning sticks into snakes. Maybe the author believes that it is not possible for demons to work supernaturally these days as well, and so follows this line of reasoning. It is not scriptural to say if someone does miracles that what he teaches is true, regardless of whether or not it is Biblical. What if someone believed what the poster who wrote the above quote says, and then encountered a false teacher doing miracles. Suppose he concludes that he must believe the false teachers teachigns because of the miracles. See the danger of this line of reasoning.

It is not true that we have no coice but to believe the man who says you must wear red sox to be saved, and then does mireacles. that line of reasoning is not Biblical. Miracles drew attention to the word of God being preached. In Acts 8, we see that the Samaritans paid close attention to Philip when they saw the miracles that he did. But on the other hand, there were many who saw the miracles of Jesus who left off following Him when His teachings got difficult.

The Bible also warns about lying signs and wonders. Paul warns that if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel, let him be accursed. Even if an angel appeared and did supernatural manifestations, the believers were not to receive a gospel other than the one preached to them. A supernatural work does not by itself alone prove that the words which accompany it are true.

On the other hand, we should not assume that because Jesus warned of lying signs and wonders that all signs and wonders are lying. The apostles did true signs and wonders after this. Jesus warned the apostles that htey would know false prohpets by their fruits. He did not say they would know false prophets by the fact that they prophesied after 150 AD or some other simlar point in time.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2000

Danny -

You have a right question to ask me there. The chronology in my mind may be off, because I am not that familiar with it anymore. However...

Where I think we are having a disagreeing point is in an area that hasnt been mentioned yet except by you. I personally do not believe in the laying of hands part. This is personal, and I can't prove it. Its still part of my revulsion to my Roman Catholic upbringing. Because of Catholic tradition, I will always see "laying on of hands" as being a) purely symbolic, or b) pseudo-Christian magic. If "power" came through the laying on of the apostle's hands, then in my mind we take a leap of faith into mysticism and magic. That's what laying on of hands means in the Catholic church. Priesthood and the power therein is confired by laying of the hands of the bishop. The 'power' is magically transferred from the bishop to the new priest. So, I think we need to be careful with the laying on of hands thing.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2000

Moses laid hands on Joshua before Joshua led Israel. The elders would lay hands on bullocks to be sacrificed if someone died near their city. The gospels show us the laying on of hands on the sick to heal them. Jesus Himself practiced this. Acts 8 talk about the apostles laying their hands on people, and those people receiving the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit came on about 12 men in Acts 19 after Paul laid hands on them.

The RCC believes in apostolic succession. The apostles laid hands onthe first bishops, and they laid hands on the next bishops and so- on until today- that is the belief of the RCC and GO churches. But if we look at Paul, he was made an apostle, as far as we can see in scripture, without this type of succession. Christ called him. When he went out on his first missionary journey, the Spirit spoke, and in response prophets and teachers laid hands on him. There is no indicatation that these prophets and teachers were elder-bishops or ministers that had apostolic succession.

The scriptures do not teach that one must have had an apostle lay hands on him to have gifts like speaking in tongues, healing, teaching, prophecy, giving, showing mercy, etc. The Bible shows us one examlpe of about 12 men prophesying and speaking in tongues after Paul laid hands on them. the Acts 8 account deals with the laying on of hands to receive the Spirit and does not mention what gifts were manifested. In Acts 10, Cornelius and those with him received the Spirit and spoke in tongues when Peter was just talking to them. I corinthians 12, Paul says that he gifts of the Spirit are distributed as the Spirit wills.

So the Bible does not teach that 'miraculous gifts' only came through the apostles hands, though God could have used that means. timothy received a gift through the laying on of hands of the elders. This was accompanied by prophecy. Maybe it was similar to Paul and Barnabas' being sent out in Acts 13. The Spirit spoke, and so they laid hands on these men, in response to the Spirit. I don't think Paul just went around laying hands on people and choosing what gift of the Spirit that person would receive. it is pretty clear from paul's writings that the gifts were distributed as the Spirit willed. Gifts could be given through the laying on of Paul's hands, but they could be given without it as well.

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2000