Oh Pentebabbleists…

Pastor was assessing woman for demons just days before decapitation…

Nope, not The Onion.

Rachael Hilyard had asked a friend: Where could she get an exorcism? Her friend told her Pastor Terry Fox.

A few days after Fox visited Hilyard’s home and blessed it, police say Hilyard decapitated 63-year-old Micki Davis in her garage.

Fox was traveling when he heard the news. He said he hadn’t been able to tell during his visit whether she was possessed or whether she was just depressed.

Read more.  And isn’t it time we all admit that Pentebabbleism is just Montanism with a new name?

About Jim

I am a Pastor, and Lecturer in Church History and Biblical Studies at Ming Hua Theological College.
This entry was posted in Modern Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Oh Pentebabbleists…

  1. John C. Poirier says:

    I’ve asked you this before, but could you please tell me what’s wrong with being a “Montanist”? (It would help if you could tell us in what ways you think their views differed from those of the apostle Paul.)

    As I’ve pointed out before, *everyone* who has studied Montanism in any depth has come to the same view: they didn’t deserve to be denounced as “heretics”. (Do you know of any exceptions?)

    Like

    • Jim says:

      F. E. Vokes, The Opposition to Montanism from Church and State in the Christian Empire (Studia Patristica, Vol. IV.ii, p. 524).

      Like

    • Jim says:

      Adolf von Harnack- “Tertullian in der Litteratur der alten Kirche” in the Sitzungsber, d. K. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissensch, 1895, p. 545 ff.

      Like

    • Jim says:

      It taught the impossibility of a second repentance, and refused to restore the lapsed to the fellowship of the church. – Schaff

      Like

    • Jim says:

      the movement is to be understood as an early instance of the apocalyptic groups which have constantly sprung up in Christian history. — F. L. Cross

      Like

    • Jim says:

      so, aside from its overemphasis on personal revelation, it’s crass view of salvation, it’s legalism, and its apocalyptic errors, i guess it’s ok…..

      Like

    • Jim says:

      but i’ll let hodge have the last word

      The points of analogy between Montanism and Mysticism are that both assume the insufficiency of the Scriptures and the ordinances of the Church for the full development of the Christian life; and both assert the necessity of a continued, supernatural, revelation from the Spirit of God. In other respects the two tendencies were divergent. Mysticism was directed to the inner life; Montanism to the outward. It concerned itself with the reformation of manners and strictness of discipline. It enjoined fasts, and other ascetic practices. As it depended on the supernatural and continued guidance of the Spirit, it was on the one hand opposed to speculation, or the attempt to develop Christianity by philosophy; and on the other to the dominant authority of the bishops. Its denunciatory and exclusive spirit led to its condemnation as heretical. As the Montanists excommunicated the Church, the Church excommunicated them

      Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 1; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 70.

      Like

  2. John C. Poirier says:

    Wow. These authorities are a little dated, wouldn’t you say?

    Let’s talk about Hodge, because I’m most surprised that you’d stand by *his* word on this.

    What does he mean by “insufficiency of the Scriptures”? If he means an *epistemic* insufficiency, then his view appears to be owed to a post-fourth century bibliology. (If you’re going to hold that against the Montanists, you might as well hold it against Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) If he means a *soteriological* insufficiency, then you must renounce all pre-Protestant teachers. Knowing Hodge, he could mean it either way.

    Why should one affirm “the ordinances of the Church”?

    Where do the Montanists ever “assert the necessity” of continuing revelation? They asserted continuing revelation, not its *necessity* for theology or soteriology (or bibliology).

    To say that the Montanists were “opposed” to “the attempt to develop Christianity by philosophy” is a rather strange claim to make, based on the tidbits we have of their beliefs. How does Hodge know this? Why not say this same thing about Jude, or the *Shepherd of Hermas*, or any of the Epistles of Ignatius?

    To say that the Montanists were “opposed” to “the dominant authority of the bishops” is simply to say what many others have said: that they were the first Protestants. The same goes for the Montanists’ “denunciatory and exclusive spirit” of the mainstream.

    We could discuss some things about the other authorities you name. For example, F. L. Cross’s claim about the Montanists’ apocalypticism is probably based on the tradition that they believed Jerusalem would descend from heaven at the site of their headquarters. Over the past thirty years, a number of scholars of Montanism have suggested that this view is based on a misreading (or mishearing?) of Montanist claims. Besides, the quotation from Cross doesn’t suggest that being an apocalyptic group is something bad–merely that there were many.

    Even if they *were* as apocalyptic as, say, John the Revelator, that would only make them as bad as, say, John the Revelator.

    Like

Comments are closed.