Twitter

(The Testimony of Eusebius & Others)

Dear Sir,

In case you are still interested in continuing the discussion of spiritual gifts, specifically the matter of tongues, with me I need to make a correction to something I said before. Also, for your records, I am posting this email (with your name removed) on my web page for two reasons:

First, what you are about to read is a result of the most time I have ever spent studying the matter from a non Biblical source; and I hope it will be a more full blessing to others also, when paired with my Biblical study of the tongues issue as set forth in the article “With New Tongues.” Second, I open myself up to comments, questions and certainly criticism of what I cite here from anyone, because my fervent desire is to know that I have examined an issue as well as I am able before setting it before others, for it is written: “My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” (James 3:1)

Now, here is the correction right up front. I said in a previous letter that one could find no examples of ecstatic tonguespeaking in the writings of the early Church fathers. That was incorrect. In fact, you may be interested in reading some of the quotations compiled by the historian Eusebius concerning this matter, which was also known to the Church as the “Montanist Heresy.”

There is an entire section of a chapter/book devoted to this in his major work, “The History of The Church,” also titled, “Ecclesiastical History,” and I am using the revised Penguin Classics edition, originally translated by G.A. Williamson in 1965.

First, the specifics of the false teaching is quoted by Eusebius from the first of three books by Apolinarius against Heresies. He (Apolinarius) mentions ecstatic tonguespeaking in all three of these, and I will furnish you with quotes from each as recorded by the historian. By the way, this Apolniarius was a bishop of Sardis (Rev 1:11; 3:1,4) during the time of Marcus Aurelius, succeeding Melito to the post. Here is a part of the passage below, into which I will insert index numbers for discussion thereafter, so as not to interrupt the flow and thus tamper with the meaning of the text.

“There is, it appears, a village near the Phrygian border of Mysia called Ardabau. There it is said that a recent convert named Montanus, while Gratus was proconsul of Syria, in his unbridled ambition to reach the top laid himself open to the adversary¹, was filled with spiritual excitement and suddenly fell into a kind of trance and unnatural ecstasy². He raved, and began to chatter and talk nonsense, prophesying in a way that conflicted with the practice of the Church handed down generation by generation from the beginning<sup3. Of those who listened at that time to his sham utterances some were annoyed, regarding him as possessed, a demoniac in the grip of a spirit of error⁴, a disturber of the masses. They rebuked him and tried to stop his chatter, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord, and His warning to guard vigilantly against the coming of false prophets. Others were elated as if by the Holy Spirit or a prophetic gift, were filled with conceit, and forgot the Lord’s distinction⁵. They welcomed a spirit that injured and deluded the mind and led the people astray: they were beguiled and deceived by it, so that it could not now be reduced to silence⁶. By some art, or rather by methodical use of a malign artifice, the devil contrived the ruin of the disobedient, and was most undeservedly honoured by them. Then he secretly stirred up and inflamed minds close to the true faith, raising up in this way two others – women whom he filled with the sham spirit, so that they chattered crazily, inopportunely, and wildly, like Montanus himself.⁷” [Chapter 5: page 161]

¹ You will notice the reason the bishop gives for the doorway being open to Satan’s influences. It was because of “ambition to reach the top.” Paul specifically warns, even about real speaking in Tongues, “Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church.” (1 Cor 14:12) No gift is given to exalt the individual, but to bless the Church. To seek a gift for any other reason is to have already fallen pray to temptation. Now, if one goes to a Church that teaches this doctrine, saying that “Unless one speaks in tongues he/she is not filled with the Holy Spirit,” not only is that a flat-out lie, for not all spoke with the true gift in the early church (1 Cor 12:30), but it also puts great pressure on its members to learn this “art.” For this reason, for the desire to fit in and to be “lifted up” as the others are, we see how the doorway to error is opened up. We shall establish once again that it is indeed error below.

² Does this sound familiar yet? You have no doubt seen far more examples of this phenomenon than I have. But are feelings of any kind, whether positive or negative, a proof of the Spirit’s influence? It seems not. Here is the Bible’s test of one being filled with the Spirit: “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous.” (1 John 5:3) If any one claims to have the Spirit of God, and does not have the Love of God – manifested in keeping His commandments – he is a liar, as the Scriptures make plain.

³ This part is key: the individuals were acting “in a way that conflicted with the practice of the Church handed down generation by generation from the beginning.” Now, one who knows Eusebius knows that he was also not a Sabbathkeeper. Apolinarius may or may not have been. However, they at least KNEW what the Sabbath was! They had heard of it, and even if they thought it was a Jewish tradition (although the real reason they stopped keeping it was because of political persecution; they wished to be seen as separate from Israelites, but we can talk about that later) they knew it had ONCE been a practice of God’s people!

In this case, the tradition can be seen as useful, because the Church, before the time of Montanus, had never even HEARD of this kind of ecstatic tonguespeaking, except in the pagan mystery religions of the day. If they had heard of it, and rejected it, one might be able to build a case for it being lost due to apostasy, as there exists for the 4th Commandment. But no such defense can exist for what is clearly a new doctrinal heresy. More on that below.

⁴ This kind of “speaker in tongues” is called by the bishop’s witnesses “a demoniac in the grip of a spirit of error.” One of the accusations you early levelled against the conservative churches (including the SDA/CSDA) was that they falsely called ecstatic tonguespeaking “a doctrine of devils.” Here is clear evidence that this did not originate as a response to the RE-appearance of the doctrine, but as a response to the FIRST appearance of it. Yahshua’s Church has consistently declared this dangerous practice to be an absurd falsification of the faith once delivered to the saints. I hope the obvious application of this is becoming clear to you. I pray you will listen to what I am setting before you, for it is written: “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6) It is this very spirit of error that we are now discussing.

⁵ Now, some DID think it was the Holy Spirit’s influence, but the bishop twice speaks of “the Lord’s distinction,” and not man’s. Eusebius does mention the true gift of tongues, but the gift of the Spirit to evangelize the Gospel to those who speak in other (human) languages is described as quite a different thing. That is taken from here:

“Similarly we hear of many members of the Church who have prophetic gifts and by the Spirit speak with all kinds of tongues, and bring men’s secret thoughts to light for their own good, and expound the mysteries of God.” [ibid. pp 159-160]

Here the historian quotes from another bishop, Iraneus, and notice it is “all kinds of tongues,” not “an unknown kind of tongue.” Furthermore, the PURPOSE of this true tonguespeaking was to “bring men’s secret thoughts to light for their own good,” which is what teaching the Word of God does (Heb 4:12); and “expounding the mysteries of God” is also a Biblical term for preaching the Gospel, as it is written in Luke 8:10 and 1 Cor 4:1. I say again, the true gift of Tongues was to teach this Gospel of victory over sin and self to men of other languages, without the Christian needing to learn that language by natural means. This is “the Lord’s distinction,” not mine, Eusebius’, Iraneus’, Apolonarius’ or any of the Apostles’.

⁶ Take note of how fast this heresy gained favor, just as its resurgence has in the mid 1800s in the US and around the world, and that it “led people astray,” as I brought up before concerning its deadly ability to draw people to an “emotional” relationship with Christ, which is emotional for it’s OWN sake. Adherents quickly forget the job we have of putting away the deathly grip of SIN. The soul which sinneth, it shall die; but the gift of Christ is eternal life, for all who will receive it and, by His grace, and as a loving response, “sin no more.” (John 5:14, 8:11) More on the effects of speaking in tongues may be drawn from this same Eusebius, as we shall shortly observe.

⁷ The contagion spreads. Not just in one, or in a few was this error to take root. But others, seeing the distinction made in the deference given to those who were thus “filled wih the spirit,” were led to open their own minds up to this fate, to “prove” that they were also spirit-filled Christians. As I listen to people in chatrooms longing for this experience that they may be “truly spiritual children of God,” I grieve in my heart for the efforts they are wasting to this end, not only for their unnecessary sorrow, but also that they could truly be following Christ by giving their attention to preaching the Word, clothing the naked and feeding the poor. This is the religion acceptable to Christ Yahshua and His Father. (James 1:27)

Now that we have established all that, let us turn a few pages to see how Montanus and his companions probably ended up. From above, we see the bishop Apolinarius’ opinion that it was a spirit that “injured and deluded the mind,” so let us see if the evidence bears him out, for “Wisdom is known of her children,” (Mat 11:19) – that is to say, a good thing will be known by its results. I quote from the same source, Eusebius, as he in turn cites Apolinarius’ second book against heresies in the Church:

“Is there one person, my good sirs, among those from Montanus and the women onwards who started the chatter, who was persecuted by the Jews or killed by the wicked? Not one. Or was any one of them seized and crucified for the Name? No indeed. Very well then: was one of the women ever whipped in Jewish synagogues or stoned? Never anywhere. It was by a different death that Montanus and Maximillia are believed to have died. For it is thought that both of these were driven out of their minds by a spirit, and hanged themselves, at different times; and on the occasion of the death of each, it was said on all sides that this was how they died, putting an end to themselves like the traitor Judas.” [Chapter 5: page 162]

It is not my purpose to say that this IS how they died. Indeed, Apolinarius himself says just afterward, “we must not imagine that without seeing them we may know the truth about such things, my friend: it may have been in this way, it may have been in some other way, that death came to Montanus, Theododus, and their female associate.” [ibid.]

Having not seen the proof himself, the bishop was hesitant to say, “it was thus and so.” However, he mentions there were several witnesses to each of the events described; and in any case, we know they came to no noble end, as the true Christians of the time very often did. Not one of their many followers was ever martyred by the enemies of the Cross. Christ taught, “Remember the word that I said unto you, ‘The servant is not greater than his lord.’ If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.” (John 15:20) In another place, “In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33b)

If this evidence seems in the slightest to lack anything, regarding the end of such who gave heed to the seducing spirits, let me draw from another of the historian’s quoted documents. This is a section taken from the work of Miltiades, another opponent of the Montanist heresy, and also provides a second witness, as it were, against the doctrine in question. He writes:

“But the pseudo-prophet speaks in a state of unnatural ecstasy, after which all restraint is thrown to the winds. He begins with voluntary ignorance and ends in involuntary madness, as stated already. But they cannot point to a single one of the prophets under either the Old Covenant or the New who was moved by the Spirit in this way¹ – not Abagus or Judas² or Silas, or Philip’s daughters...” [Chapter 5: page 164]

¹ Notice the early writers did not consider Paul’s claims from 1Cor 14 or the events in Acts 19 to be anything but what I have described to you in earlier emails. These were gifts given to men that they may speak in other languages to praise the Father in the hearing of those who would understand, and to show them the way of Salvation, for this is the job of the Church. If none were around to hear and understand the one with the gift or no one to interpret him for those who couldn’t, “let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1Cor 14:28) Remember, one of the aspects of the fruit of the Spirit is Temperance (Gal 5:22,23 – Gk: egkrateia “self control,” the same root from which we get democrat, ruled by the people, autocrat, ruled by a single person, and so on). No such inability to control one’s words, actions or speech in this manner has ever been manifested in a true child of God in either Covenant, as the author makes plain.

² Not Judas Iscariot, but Judas Barsabas – see Acts 15:32 and other places.

Similarly, it is also true that due to a misunderstanding of Scripture, and the lack of a true and personal relationship of Church members with their Savior, the Charismatic and Celebration movements are gaining ground within many denominations, including those formerly of the Adventist faith, as you yourself are. But is this evidence of the validity of their doctrine? I would like to leave you with another quote that Eusebius takes from the first author, Apolinarius. This is from the third of his three books against errors in the early Church as set forth by the various schismatics, and also attests to the methods by which this error is often defended:

“When all their arguments have been disposed of and they have nothing to say, they try to take refuge in the martyrs, alleging that they have a great number and that this is a convincing proof of the power of what in their circles is called the prophetic spirit. But this seems to be as false as false can be, for some of the other heretical sects have immense numbers of martyrs, but this is surely no reason why we should approve of them, or acknowledge that they have the truth.” [Chapter 5: page 163]

He goes on to speak of the various other sects that profess errors. It seems that by the time of book 3, the Montanists had seen the obvious nature of the evidence I set forth above pertaining to persecution, and thereafter began to claim that many of them were killed for their faith. This has never been documented, as he states earlier, but Apoloniarius goes on to further strengthen his position by saying that even if it could be shown that some of them were persecuted for their doctrine, so have many who claim to be right, including (as he goes on to describe), the Marcionites, who do not even acknowledge Christ as Lord!

I find only a restatement of my original position to you in these preserved histories. Everything I find in both the Bible and in the record of the Church which appeared soon after deepens my conviction on this matter. The way to “test the spirits,” as I told you previously, is not to do as you have done – immerse yourself in the environment and expect to be able to objectively evaluate the belief – but to go “to the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:20) And why is this the only true way to evaluate any doctrine? Because “The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psa 19:7)

You claimed that someone you spoke to had found a favorable reference to ecstatic tonguespeaking in the writings of the Church fathers. I have yet to see it, unless he is referring to that quotation that was taken from Iraneus in point 5 of the original passage I cited above. As you have followed me this far, you have seen that this was quickly dealt with, and further revealed by Eusebius’ other sources to be wholly different than the practice as it exists today. If the person with whom you were speaking was thinking of some other passage, I would truly like to see it; and if on the strength of that one reference your contact is able to explain away both the sets of evidence (Biblical and Ecclesiastical) that I have presented up until this point, I will be quite surprised, but certainly not unwilling to consider it.

I counsel you again by the Spirit that is within me that you not judge these matters by any emotional experience which you have witnessed, by any sophisticated explanation by men. What I have attempted to do is to set before you the matter as plainly as I can from the Scriptures, and also to provide further evidence as to how the Church, for whom it was written, understood the matter. May Yah bless your continuing studies on this issue and all others.

Your servant in Christ,
David.

Home | Contact | More Articles