Who Were They?
The Montanists
Acts 15:5-11
5But there rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was
needful to circumcise them, and to command them
to keep the law of Moses. 6And the apostles and
elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7And when there had been much disputing, Peter
rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye
know how that a good while ago God made choice
among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should
hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God,
which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness,
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9And put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore
why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of
the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear? 11But we believe that through the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved,
even as they.
[JFR]
We continue to examine some of the groups that
were in existence during the period of the
~ 175 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
Reformation. I again utilize Pastor K. David
Oldfield’s work on the Reformation.
[Oldfield]
Can we agree that at the time of the close of
the Book of Acts, all the so-called “Christian
churches” were true churches of the Lord? Can we
agree that the only religious “ecclesia” using the
name of “Christ” were assemblies of God? As we
see in the first chapters of Revelation, there were
growing problems, but weren’t they all still churches
of God? If we make that assumption, and I do, can
we also assume that most of the members of those
churches were children of God? Sure, there were
a few ignorant and confused Judases, accidentally
admitted to sound churches, but there were no
baptized infants, and no open apostates. The
members
of
the church
in
Jerusalem were
primarily Jews – saved by the grace of God. And
most
of
the
members
of
the
church
in Ephesus were regenerate
Gentiles. Some
churches were filled with saved Romans, some
with Greeks, and some took their members from
redeemed “heathen” – according to the Roman
definition. If we had the opportunity to visit several
of those churches, wouldn’t we find a few external
differences? For example, the sermons and lessons
would
have
been
preached in
different
languages. Despite that some sermons weren’t in
Greek, Hebrew or English, the churches were still
~ 176 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
scriptural. The church in Jerusalem had several
elders, while other smaller churches may have had
only one. Perhaps during prayer, members of some
churches all knelt, some stood with their heads
bowed, but others raised their hands looked toward
Heaven. I don’t think that those differences
would render
any of
those
churches un-
Christian or unscriptural.
Just
because the
snacks between Sunday School and church would
have been different in the Greek churches and the
Judean churches – they didn’t dis-fellowship each
other. Doesn’t our scripture here in Acts 15 indicate
that the Jerusalem church had some differences with
the churches which Paul was establishing overseas?
And yet, they continued to accept one another.
Isn’t it true that various ecclesia today can be
scriptural assemblies while practicing outward
differences? Some differences are small enough to
be
nearly laughable – Mid-week services
on
Tuesday
or
Thursday
rather
than
on
the “scriptural” day of Wednesday. Whether or not
there is a middle aisle in the auditorium. Perhaps you
have heard of churches using offering plates rather
than an offering box. Does a church which has
ushers to collect the offering cease to be a scriptural
church? No! But from there each differing point
rises just a notch until some congregations begin
to refuse fellowship with others. In some churches
the women wear external head-coverings, in some
~ 177 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
churches they don’t, and in some there is a mixture
of opinion. Are any of those churches not true
churches of Christ, assuming the rest of their doctrine
is scriptural? And again, in regard to women, in
some churches they are never permitted to speak,
while in others they have limited opportunities, and
in some churches, they lead in prayer, in music and
even
in
teaching.
We
all
may
have our
opinions and even enforce those opinions in our
own church. But does a differing opinion in this
area remove the church candlestick from before the
Lord? Another common question is the use of wine
or grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. People disagree
with me, but I don’t think that one or the
other nullifies the authority of Christ in that
assembly, if certain other restrictions are maintained.
And then there is the question of how often should
the Lord’s Supper be observed? I’ve been in
churches where it was observed every Sunday,
apparently basing their observance on what they read
in the Corinthian letters. But those churches still
accepted me as a Baptist missionary, even though I
think weekly is too frequent.
But here is an idea which perhaps you’ve never
considered – All Baptists agree that baptism is
the immersion of a believer in water. Baptism is not
a sacrament – it does not wash away sins or in any
way add to a person’s salvation. I assume that most
Baptists immerse new believers in the name of the
~ 178 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But what if a
congregation, believing just like we do in regard to
salvation, insists on dipping that new believer three
times – once in the name of each person of the
Godhead?
Does
the
practice
of
a triune
immersion make a church, or keep a church, from
being scriptural? I ask that question because many,
if not the majority of churches, in the first three
centuries of Christianity practiced triune immersion.
[Previously], I said that I was going to
be basing many of my comments on the historical
studies of Thomas Armitage, John T. Christian, and
Robert Robinson. Just for clarity, I’m going to have
to
edit that
statement.
I
have
become so
disgusted with Robinson’s Arianism, that I’ve quit
reading him. He was in many ways very good in his
research, but I am going to use his material only
after it has been filtered through the minds of other
men. And then I’m going to add to my preferred
list – G. H. Orchard, J. M. Cramp and W.A. Jarrel.
For years, I have been looking for a copy of Cramp,
but they are exorbitantly expensive. Then I found
that I could buy a Kindle edition for $3.95 – plus he
can be found on the internet. So far – I am greatly
enjoying reading Brother Cramp. Not only is he a
Canadian, but I appreciate his clarity and the logical
outline of his book. I hope one of these days to make
him available through our web-page.
~ 179 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
By the middle of the second century there were
growing problems in the religious world.
For
example,
by
150
A.D. persecution was
becoming sharper, with every other Roman
emperor. Throughout the second and third century it
seemed that one emperor was lenient, but the next
was harsh, and he was more persecutorial than his
predecessor’s predecessor had been. Each
persecution not only meant the death of hundreds or
thousands of God’s saints, but it also meant
the departure
of
the
weak
brethren and
the impostors.
Furthermore,
with
each
new
persecution came the order to destroy the books of
the true Christians – including the scriptures. But
then when peace returned, many of the deserters
tried
to
return to
their
former
churches. Some churches welcomed them,
while others refused, creating a wedge between
those churches. People who had delivered their
Bibles to
be
burned
became
known
as “traditors,” and you can imagine how well-
received they were by those who truly loved the
Word of God and risked their lives to keep it. By the
third century, some churches were receiving those
who had departed, but only if they would accept
baptism again. “Anabaptism” has existed since at
least the third century and probably before.
Other problems began to arise as well. For
example, the importance of baptism began taking a
~ 180 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
life of its own. Some churches and Christians
were not only saying that baptism gave important
evidence of salvation, but they were also saying
that baptism was essential to salvation. If someone
had not been immersed, they were to be treated as
unsaved. That evolved into the idea that immersion
was a part of salvation. Of course, not all churches
believed that, but the idea was growing. Remember,
too, that many professing Christians were slaves,
and
many
of
the
church
members
were illiterate. Orchard says, “the
teachers
of
religion thought it advisable or expedient to instruct
such in the essential truths of the gospel, by placing
those truths, as it were, before their eyes, under
visible object or images.” Images and other human
inventions began to creep into churches – things like
the sign of the cross. Also, during this time, pastors
with strong personalities and egos, or strong
ambitions began to assert authority over smaller
congregations, making the term “bishop” more
important
than “elder” or “pastor.” And
furthermore, unnecessary,
and
stupid
additions were made to important functions like
baptism. For example, oil, an emblem of the Spirit,
was often dabbed on the forehead in the shape of the
cross Some began to say that a holy kiss became
essential – a required part of the baptismal formula.
Some gave the newly baptized honey and milk –
symbols
that
they
were
babes
in
Christ. Baptism became
more
and
~ 181 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
more ritualistic, and its true meaning became more
obscure. But for every church which added these
human elements there were others which refused.
Early in days of the New Testament Christianity
moved into northern Africa. First there was
the Ethiopian eunuch, but after the close of
the Book of Acts, it is said that Matthew, Mark, and
Jude ministered
in Egypt and
then
along
the Mediterranean coast further to the west. There
were good
men
and
strong
churches from
Alexandria, Egypt to Carthage in the west. But then
as Robinson puts it – “The first and the most fatal of
all events to the primitive religion, was the setting up
of a Christian academy at Alexandria” – Egypt. It’s
leadership began with a man Pantaenus, followed
by Clement and
then
the
infamous Origen.
Following
Athens
in
Greece, Alexandria was
the most prominent cultural city in the Roman
world. It enticed not only businessmen but
intellectuals from every direction. Its library was
the largest in the world, and the city drew every
philosophy imaginable. Clement, followed even
more so by Origen, fell into the vortex of
Gnosticism, and over a short period of time, their
school became filled with Judaism, Paganism,
human philosophy under the cloak of Christianity.
So,
the
first known Bible
seminary became prototypical of thousands more –
a cesspool of heresy. One thing for which the
~ 182 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
Alexandrian school became so notable was their
Christian version of Gnosticism. The Gnostics
believed that wisdom was a product of the mind,
nothing else – not faith, not revelation. If something
didn’t make logical sense to whoever was in charge
at the time – then it wasn’t true. As a result, the
Alexandrian school became a greenhouse for
the allegorization of the scriptures. Just about every
clear Biblical statement was explained away by
Origen and his disciples. Miracles, the virgin birth,
the deity of Christ, the blood atonement – these and
other important things meant something other than
what it really meant when Christ, Paul and Peter first
said it or wrote it. And an extension of that heresy
was the corruption of the written Word. They quite
literally re-wrote the Bible to suit their Gnosticism.
In about the year 150, there arose a man named
Montanus.
He was born in Phrygia in today’s central
Turkey. Seeing the deteriorating condition of Bible
Christianity,
he resolved
to
keep
himself,
his doctrine, and his church as true to the New
Testament as he could. At first, he had few local
sympathizers, and no one to guide him or to counsel
him. But he did have the scriptures, and he
determined pattern his service after the Book of
Acts. Whether or not he was truly successful, I’ll
leave with the Lord.
~ 183 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
Remember that this man ministered nearly 2,000
years ago. And remember, too, that there have
been repeated attempts by God’s enemies to destroy
any and all trace of disagreements to their various
regimes. In other words, we have not been left with
absolute proof of anything about this man. And
what we do have may have been contaminated by the
hatred of both the Romans and the Alexandrians.
It is said that Montanus believed in on-going
revelation – that the Holy Spirit continued to inspire
His people. Depending on definitions, Baptists still
believe that sort of thing, but in a limited sort of way.
I am convinced that the Holy Spirit has led me into
this study on the names and titles of God’s people.
But the scriptures that I use are confined to the
sixty-six books of the Bible, not new revelation. One
of the problems of second century was the growing
episcopacy –
the
religious hierarchy. The
bishops of larger churches were dictating policy and
doctrine to smaller churches. They were setting up
and removing church elders. They were insisting on
Alexandrian rites and Biblical interpretations in
other men’s churches. Perhaps Montanus’ reaction
was extreme, but in addition to demanding
the complete autonomy of his church, he
emphasized the Holy Spirit leadership of each
church leader. It appears that he believed in new
revelations
–
perhaps
like
some “new
lighters.” William Williams wrote – “They insisted
~ 184 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
much upon the power of the Spirit, as the great
conservator and guardian of the life of the Christian
church. Now, as far back as the days of Montanism,
this was offensive to the (established and so-called)
Christian churches, which became, under the power
of
wealth
and
fashion,
secularized
and
corrupted.” Armitage wrote – “The one prime-idea
held by the Montanists in common with Baptists, and
in the distinction from the churches of the third
century, was that membership in the churches should
be confined to purely regenerate persons; and that a
spiritual life and discipline should be maintained
without any affiliation with the authority of the
state.” It
is
said
that
Montanists
not
only permitted women
to
speak,
but
they encourage them to speak in their churches.
While I disagree with the idea of women preachers,
I am not convinced that if other doctrines are right,
that this unchurches a Baptist congregation. If what
Armitage said about them is true, does their
acceptance of women preachers mean that they were
not true churches of Christ?
John Henry Newman, 19th century Roman Catholic
historian, wrote “the very foundation of Montanism
is development, not in doctrine, but in discipline and
conduct.” One the cardinal Montanist doctrines was
the imminent return of Christ – just as we believe.
They believed in the soon to be established liberal
reign of Christ on earth – there were clearly pre-
~ 185 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
millinnialists. And as a result, they preached I John
3 – “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it
doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know
that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for
we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath
this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is
pure.” Armitage says, “Montanus labored hard to
rekindle the love of many who had waxed cold, and
to restore the spirituality of the churches. But he was
so extremely rigid in the matter of fasting and other
acts of self-denial, that he caught the ascetic side of
religion in its demands for a pure life.” If
their definition
of
worldliness was much
stronger than ours, would that keep us from calling
his ministry Baptistic? Armitage again, “He taught
that men should not flee from persecution, and
insisted on the rebaptism of the ‘lapsed;’ not because
they had been improperly baptized in the first place,
but because they denied Christ, and on re-professing
Him, ought to be baptized afresh.” They were
anabaptists. And those Montanists rejected the
growing idea that baptism was a sacrament – it did
not save.
Montanism spread from Phrygia in the second
century throughout the Mediterranean in the third.
Eventually there were Montanist churches in Asia,
Africa, Greece, and Italy. The 325 A.D. Council of
Nicea debated them but took no action. One
document said that they may have been fanatics, but
~ 186 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
they were not heretics. Is it necessarily a bad thing
to be a fanatic for Christ? But then the Council of
Laodicea condemned them but would a bad report
from Laodicea be a bad thing in itself?
Remember Revelation 3:14-6 – “And unto the angel
of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things
saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the
beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works,
that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert
cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and
neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with
goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not
that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and
blind, and naked.”
In A.D. 381 the Council of Constantinople ordered
that the Montanists be treated like pagans and
required converts from Montanist churches to be re-
immersed.
Even
early Catholicism
practiced
anabaptism in the very early days. Jarrel quotes a
man named Möller, who stated – “Montainism was
not a new form of Christianity; nor were the
Montantists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism
was simply a relation 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.” Jarrel summarizes his account of
these people saying, “That the Montantists churches
~ 187 ~
Church History Through the Trail of Blood
were Baptist churches is the only legitimate
conclusion from their comparison with the facts.”
From consulting with more than half a dozen
references, the people called “Montanists” in the
second, third and into the fourth centuries were for
the most part true children of God. The world
ridiculed them by applying to them the name of one
of their early leaders. But I believe that God called
those people “His saints.”
~ 188 ~