“God has spoken to me.”
There are few statements that will shut down debate more quickly than this one. If Christians disagree over a doctrine, a practice, or an idea, then the trump card is always “God has spoken to me” about that. End of discussion.
But, the history of the church (not to mention the Scriptures themselves) demonstrates that such claims of private, direct revelation are highly problematic. Of course, this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t speak to people. The Scripture is packed with examples of this. But, these were typically individuals with a unique calling (e.g., prophet or apostle), or who functioned at unique times in redemptive history (e.g., the early church in Acts).
After the first century was over, and the apostles had died, the church largely rejected the idea that any ol’ person could step forward and claim to have direct revelation from God. This reality is probably best exemplified in the early Christian debate over Montanism.
Montanism was a second-century movement whose leader Montanus claimed to receive direct revelation from God. In addition, two of his “prophetesses,” Priscilla and Maximilla also claimed to receive such revelation. Such revelations were often accompanied by strange behavior. When Montanus had these revelations, “[He] became obsessed, and suddenly fell into frenzy and convulsions. He began to be ecstatic and to speak and to talk strangely” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.7).
Needless to say, this sort of activity caused great concern for the orthodox leaders of the second century. Part of their concern was the manner in which this prophetic activity was taking place. They condemned it on the grounds that it was “contrary to the custom which belongs to the tradition and succession of the church from the beginning” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.7).
But, the other concern (and perhaps the larger one) was that this new revelation was inconsistent with the church’s beliefs about the apostles. The second-century leaders understood the apostles to be a unique mouthpiece for God; so much so that they would accept no revelation that wasn’t understood to be apostolic.
As an example of this commitment, the early church rejected the Shepherd of Hermas–a book supposedly containing revelations from heaven–on the grounds that it was written “very recently, in our own times” (Muratorian fragment). In other words, it was rejected because it wasn’t apostolic.
This issue reached a head when the Montanists began to write down their new prophecies, forming their own collection of sacred books. The orthodox leaders viewed such an activity as illegitimate because, on their understanding, God had already spoken in his apostles, and the words of the apostles were recorded in the New Testament writings.
A few examples of how the orthodox leaders rejected these books of “new revelation”:
1. Gaius of Rome, in his dialogue with the Montanist Proclus, rebuked “the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new Scriptures” (Hist. eccl. 6.20.3).
2. Apollonius objected on the grounds that Montanist prophets were putting their “empty sounding words” on the same level as Christ and the apostles (Hist. eccl. 5.18.5).
3. Hippolytus complained that the Montanists “allege that they have learned something more through these [Montanist writings], than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels” (Haer. 8.12).
4. The anonymous critic of Montanism recorded by Eusebius registers his hesitancy to write a response to the Montantists lest he be seen as making the same mistake as them and “seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant of the Gospel” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.3)
When you look at these responses, a couple of key facts become clear. First, and this is critical, it is clear that these authors already knew and had received a number of New Testament writings as authoritative Scripture. Thus, they already had a NT canon of sorts (even if some books were still under discussion). Indeed, it is the existence of these books that forms the basis for their major complaint against the Montanists.
Second, and equally critical, the response of these writers shows that they did not accept new revelation in their time period. For them, the kind of revelation that could be considered “God’s word,” and thus written down in books, had ceased with the apostolic time period.
In terms of the modern church, there are great lessons to be learned here. For one, we ought to be equally cautious about extravagant claims that people have received new revelation from heaven. And, even more than this, the Montanist debate is a great reminder to always go back to Scripture as the ultimate standard and guide for truth. It is on the written word of God that the church should stand.
Frances Fritschle says
It has to be scripture proven on the word of God.
Kwesi Sena says
Thank you so much Michael for this article. Having grown up in Ghana where Christianity is based more on the revelation the so-called Man of God has received rather than the authority word of God, this article is really helpful.
jimpemberton says
In a way the false prophets of Montanism didn’t intend, God used them to clarify to the Church his revelation to us in what he intended to be the authoritative canon of Scripture.
Robert says
Thank you for this piece, Dr. Kruger. I am so thankful that we have the complete Word of God in our time. What a comfort!
“It is on the written word of God that the church should stand.”
Amen.
Fr. Alexis Baldwin says
“It is clear that these authors already knew and had received a number of New Testament writings as authoritative Scripture. Thus, they already had a NT canon of sorts (even if some books were still under discussion).”
Of course, they were used in the Liturgy!
This is precisely the point we, as Orthodox Christians, present to others.
Not Scripture and Tradition, not Sola Scriptura, not Scripture, Tradition and Reason, but Holy Scripture in Tradition
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).
As Fr. John Whiteford wrote:
“The word here translated “traditions” is the Greek word paradosis — which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means “what is transmitted.” It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (I Corinthians 11:2, Second Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them “the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, “I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you” (First Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? “I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you” (first Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — “the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints” (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, “the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (I Timothy 3:15).
The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first had only fragments — one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not — for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this determination.
The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it.”
—-Sola Scriptura: An Orthodox Examination of the Protestant Teaching
In Christ,
Fr. Alexis Baldwin
(a priest of the Orthodox Church in America)
Brian Collins says
This understanding of paradosis does not take into account the actual semantic range of this word-group. Padadosis may refer to something passed on orally from generation to generation. But it can also refer to anything that was passed on. So, for instance, you cite 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 2 Thess. 2:15. But there is no presumption here of a chain of teaching passed on orally as opposed to Scripture. The “tradition-words” here simply refer to teaching that passed from Paul to that congregation. In fact paradosis and related words do not necessitate that the teaching be passed on orally as opposed to written form. Thus we can’t presume that what Jude refers to in verse 3 of his epistle was oral tradition. The problem here is that a dogmatic sense of tradition is being read back into these words without taking into account their actual semantic range.
The other problem here is that there are multiple views on what tradition is. Are we talking about Irenaeus’s view, in which Scripture and tradition have the same content. In this model tradition indicated to Christians what the proper interpretation of disputed texts was. Or are we talking about a view that emerged later in the patristic period that held that tradition authoritatively supplements Scripture. Or are we talking about John Henry Cardinal Newman’s view of tradition, which makes room for development of doctrine. [A very helpful survey of various views on tradition is found in A. N. S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey,” Vox Evangelica 9 (1975): 37-55.]
I find Calvin’s reply to Pighuis decisive in the matter of what authority oral tradition should have for the Christian: “Origen, Tertullian, and others like them . . . begin by saying that they will say nothing which is not the shared belief of the churches, which were instructed by the apostles themselves.”But, Calvin replied, these fathers embraced “crazy ideas” that no one wanted to claim as authentic apostolic tradition. “Even Origen, whose time is not much different from theirs [Irenaeus’s and Tertullian’s], counts among the essentials of the faith certain opinions which, if Pighius does not anathematize them, will get him stoned by his own side too.” Calvin, Against Pighuis, ed. Lane, 66-67 [277-78].
Fr. Alexis Baldwin says
From an academic reading, those points are logically coherent.
Our communities have lived the Paradosis from the time of Acts 2:46 to the current day, even until Christ comes again. In other words, Christ to the Disciples and Apostles to our communities (which they founded) through to today. This is the Orthodox Church.
Setting up written versus oral tradition is a historical impossibility. We have continued living the Holy Tradition from the beginning. We don’t rely on presumption. The Lived tradition is the liturgical life of the people. We have never been confused about what Tradition is or how to live it.
As for being confused about St. Irenaeus or St. Ignatius pr St. Polycarp or any supposed “contradiction” on teachings, this has never been our issue. The issues came when false prophets taught heresy. Though it took a bit of time for the First Ecumenical council, Bishops and Priests and even laity have always combated false teachings, but only within the Church, from the Holy Tradition. In other words, it wasn’t Philosophy or logic or democratic vote, but the faithful living of the Divine Revelation. As Fr. John explained in the quote I provided “The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (I Timothy 3:15).”
In other words, we are talking about the Tradition, the Teaching, the Faith given to the Disciples and Apostles by Christ and then imparted to the Church which has unerringly and faithful preserved it.
As an Orthodox Christian, I sure it comes as no surprise that I do not find Calvin an authority on any matter Theological, dogmatic or otherwise. I would point you to a more recent and quite thorough work concerning the Orthodox Christian assessment of the Reformation, inculding an assessment of Calvin: “Rock and Sand: An Orthodox Appraisal of the Protestant Reformers and Their Teaching” by Fr. Josiah Trenham
Michael says
I appreciate your clearly stated reply Fr. Baldwin.
Fr. Alexis Baldwin says
Thanks Michael!
shadi says
Funny
Bob S says
“And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not — for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles?”
How did they know? Because the written was the same as the oral, which came first.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).
The emphasis is on the teaching – not the manner of teaching.
IOW after the death of the apostles, i.e. those qualified to give us oral traditions, due to their foresight and obedience to Christ, we have the complete apostolic oral traditions set down and preserved for us in the NT Scripture.
michaelfosterblog says
Wish cats wrapped up in the N.A.R. would read something like this… Much needed! Thank you for putting it out there!
Tim says
If it’s compatible with Scripture, it’s not a fresh revelation. If it’s incompatible with Scripture, then again it’s not a fresh revelation.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
The Montanist Movement is currently found in the Charismatic/Pentacostal Movement. This is especially true of the 5-fold Ministry Movement. The “slain in the spirit ,” “holy laughter,” etc., are examples of this phenomenon where the experience is more important and authoritative than the Scriptures.
The are several problems with the Montanists. First, is the use of “ecstatic” speaking which eas common amongst the pagan religions of the Ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world. Examples of this would be the Oracle of Delphi and the Syballine Oracles. Second, is that the Judeo-Christian views of prophecy with its emphasis on agreement with the Scriptures. This is is contrary to point one.
Third, the Montanists were rejecting the authority of the local pastor, bishop, elder, etc. This is evident from their insistence on receiving a “revelation from the Lord,” “…of the Spirit,” “…of God,” etc.
Finally, what does one do with Tertullian?
Daniel says
I have observed little of people gaining special revelation and writing it down. What I have observed more of is the Holy Spirit speaking or leading in a personal way. One that guides an individual in certain situations, encourages him, and especially convicts him in his heart of hearts. I know this is not the kind of “God spoke to me” that you described, Michael–but I think it can be easy to lump any supernatural, Spiritual “experience” together and say: “God only speaks to us through His completed Canon!” Obviously the Holy Spirit must confirm Biblical truth, but if He is not speaking to our hearts and nudging us towards Christ–what is He doing at all?
Cathy Meissner says
Yes, thank you. This leading of the Holy Spirit often gets lumped in with “special revelation,” and it is very confusing and condemning to many.
Kyle says
Yes, but the question is, are you exegeting your feelings and experiences or are you exegeting the bible? Where is the apostolic teaching regarding ongoing individual sentimental experiences with the Holy Spirit? Is this the message we are to tell the world, come to Jesus because he’ll lift your spirits and whisper sweet nothings into your ears? “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” 2 Cor. 4:5.
Daniel says
Kyle, I do not mean that the Spirit emphasizes our emotion at the expense of Scripture; but He rather leads us to the Scripture–He helps us to live our life to the glory of God…not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). I think of the Holy Spirit testifying that we are children of God (Romans 8:16), Guiding us in all truth (John 16:13), Convicting the world of sin/righteousness/judgment (Matthew 10:20), Teaching us what to say (Luke 12:11-22–and I do not think that verse is just for the apostles). He is our Helper for a reason. Now these often work in conjunction with Scripture and always affirm Scriptural truth–but I feel that in many reformed circles whenever people mention, “Spirit led me…” or “Spirit convicted me”–everyone gets up in arms and think they are writing a new gospel. There has to be some balance here.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
There are two main problems with this issue. First, the issue of making the application the the interpretation which is a clear violation of the rules of Hermeneutics. Second, is the issue of terminology. Frequently, this comes out as “revelation” instead of as “illumination.” The other is that God “forgets” sin. God is all-knowing. Thus, God cannot forget anything, bot He does make a conscious decision “to not remember ” one’s sin. We need to make sure that terminology is correct.
Tony says
The description by Eusebius about Montanus that, “[He] became obsessed, and suddenly fell into frenzy and convulsions. He began to be ecstatic and to speak and to talk strangely” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.7) is quite striking when compared to the description of Muhammad, the Islamic prophet when he received revelation. According to the Hadith (records of the sayings and deeds of Muhammad), he also would convulse and fall into a frenzy which one psychologist opined may have been symptoms of epilepsy.
Eric Sun says
Amen. Let’s also flush out referrals to smoking, drinking and gambling being evil, too. Since, after all, Christ’s first miracle is turning water into wine and doing so for people that are already too drunk to tell the difference between good and bad wine (regardless, He creates the best wine, of course!)
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says
I remind myself that there are several related issues to the issue of new revelation and the NT Canon.
First, the NT Canon is closed. There is no longer any more Scripture even should the Epistle to the Laodicea be found.
Second, since the NT Canon is closed it follows that there is no new revelation irregardless of the source. This is based on the fact that there is no Apostle nor Prophet alive since the Apostle John died ca. 95-100 A.D. The attempt to make any person an “apostle” smacks of eisegesis. Furthermore, no one meets the quaifications of an Apostle as stated in Acts 1; also not one person alive today claiming to be an Apostle was chosen by Christ (Matthew 10) or by the Apostles themselves (Mattathias, Acts 1) nor been with Jesus “from the baptism of John to His taking up from us,” i.e. from Jesus’ baptism to His Resurrection and Ascension.
Third, the qualifications of a prophet found in Deuteronomy are quite clear: 1) Behaviour must agree with Scripture; 2) Words and Thoughts must agree with Scripture; 3) Prophecy must come to pass. The latter is the most important. Every prophecy must be fufilled 100 %. 999 out of 1000 does not make one a prophet. All it does make one a “false prophet.” No one meets the latter qualification; although they might meet the other two qualifications.
Fourth, if the NT Canon is open, if there is continual revelation or prophecy, if there are Apostles and Prophets today, then what does one do about the Quran and Mohammed; The Book of Morman, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine an Covenant and Joesph Smith, Brigham Young and the “Living Prophet;” Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy; or, Ellen White”?
I think one can see that there are other reasons, but this should get the debate over Authority versus Experience is Final.
Richard Klaus says
Dr. Kruger,
If you haven’t already read it you may be interested in this article: “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation in the Early Church” by Cecil M. Robeck Jr. in Church, Word, and Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey W. Bromiley–edited by James E. Bradley and Richard Muller (Eerdmans, 1987).
I would be interested in your thoughts on Robeck’s article.