Tertullian within Montanism: Equilibrium Between Word and Spirit

Introduction

            The first few centuries after Christ’s life, death and resurrection were foundational in the development and establishment of the doctrine of the church. During this time the church had to delicately discern that which was heresy and that which was truth. Tertullian and his polemics against heresy were instrumental in this development.^[1] Tertullian would coin the terms “trinity” and “economy” which were fundamental in the development of orthodox theology in subsequent years after his death.^[2] During his life, a heretical movement called Montanism emerged which emphasized the gifts of the Holy Spirit and severe asceticism. This movement possesses some similarities to modern day Pentecostalism and the emerging New Apostolic Reformation. Curiously, Tertullian sympathized greatly with Montanism which begs the questions: how did Tertullian manage to develop a nuanced, orthodox Trinitarian theology within the confines of a heretical charismatic movement? Can Tertullian’s actions inform/benefit charismatic leaders today?

This paper describes both Tertullian and Montanism within history and elucidates how Montanism was heretical and how Tertullian’s perception of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit were influenced by it. From this data a few suggestions are then put forth which consider how modern-day Pentecostals and New Apostolic Reformation leaders might benefit from the nature of Tertullian’s interactions with Montanism.

Tertullian and Montanism

Who was Tertullian?

            Tertullian was born in 160 A.D. into a pagan home.^[3] Growing up within a wealthy family in Carthage, Tertullian had the opportunity to receive an education which made him proficient in rhetoric, law, and Greek.^[4] As a convert to Christianity when he was middle aged, Tertullian become a formidable force academically authoring numerous apologies, works against heretics and exhortations to other Christians.^[5] Tertullian is often called “the father of Latin Christianity” because he was the first prolific Christian to publish significant theological and apologetic works in the Latin language.^[6]From his works against heresies, Tertullian coined the terms “Trinity” and “economy,” which became fundamental concepts in later debates over the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Tertullian’s, therefore, had a significant influence on the development of Trinitarian theology and might be considered his greatest contribution to Christian history.^[7]

            About halfway through Tertullian’s life, around 207 A.D, he became increasingly sympathetic to Montanism.^[8]Some scholars have noted that writings from Tertullian’s Montanist period show a much more personal way of thinking about the Holy Spirit.^[9] Eventually, however, Montanism would come to be labeled as a heresy.^[10] It is interesting, therefore, to consider Tertullian’s association with Montanism. If Tertullian was such a rigorous defender against heresy, then why did he sympathize with Montanism later in his life? How is Montanism heretical and how did it influence Tertullian’s understanding of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity?

What is Montanism and why is it heretical?

            This movement began in about the middle of the second century by a man named Montanus, who before his conversion to Christianity, was “a mutilated priest of Cybele with no special talents or culture but burning with fanatical zeal.”^[11] He began prophesying after his conversion, declaring that he had been possessed by the Holy Spirit. Shortly after two women named Priscilla and Maximlla also began prophesying.^[12] In addition to their emphasis on the gift of Prophecy, they also stressed the ascetic life, and prescribed frequent fasting, no fleeing from persecution and no second marriages.^[13] While these practices were different from the Catholic ones, there is no suggestion that the Montanists did not also adhere to Catholic practices. It is actually quite likely that the original Montanists were quite loyal to the Catholic church.^[14] It is important to note, therefore, that Montanism’s roots were the Catholic church, and so its errors and heresy developed out of an exaggeration of Christian ideas and demands.^[15] In its earlier beginnings, the Bishop of Rome actually acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla and “bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia as a result of this acknowledgment.^[16] However, Praxeus falsely accused the prophets and their churches and compelled the bishop of Rome to recall this letter of peace, desisting from acknowledging their gifts.^[17] When considering this initial acceptation of Montanism by the Catholic church, in conjunction with Tertullian’s sympathies with the movement, it is necessary to analyze a little more closely whether or not Montanism is truly heretical in its doctrine.

            A scholar by the name of Erich Nestler wrote a paper specifically on whether or not Montanism was a heresy. He observed that because the Catholic church did not initially condemn the movement from the beginning, “there must have been elements which were part of the experience of second century Christianity.”^[18] Nestler evaluated Montanism on two levels, doctrine and practice with doctrine being the “element” he considered most orthodox and practice being the most legalistic and extreme.^[19] While the practices of fasting and not fleeing persecution were somewhat legalistic, the most extreme practice within Montanism was its “intense prophetic acts.” Problems began to arise when the movement began to teach from the practice of prophecy, as the Montanists claimed special revelation from the Holy Spirit which was supplementary to that communicated by Christ and His apostles.^[20] This was problematic for the Catholic church, because by teaching from the practice of prophecy, the Montanists were “assuming an advance beyond the New Testament and the Christianity of the apostles which caused the Bible to suffer depreciation, inasmuch as it was no longer the final utterance of the divine teaching.”^[21] To try and provide a biblical basis for this new doctrine, Tertullian developed a new hermeneutic which might be termed “simple dispensationalism.” This hermeneutic viewed four stages in human history, first came the innate idea of God, then the legal religion of the Old Testament, third the gospel during the early life of Christ and lastly the revelation of the Holy Spirit.^[22] Nestler astutely points out how this hermeneutic opened the door for the Montanists to “make individual guidance a law for the whole church” which is ultimately problematic because it restricts the Scriptures from being the highest source of authority against which external “revelations of the Paraclete” are measured.^[23]

The elevation of the prophetic over Scripture was one of a few problems that the Catholic church saw as dangerous, which led them to proclaim Montanism a heresy at their earliest synods. Drobner succinctly describes their problems with Montanism.

The long-term consequences of Montanist rigorism had to be recognized as dangerous, namely the sole authority of the prophet, excluding all of the ecclesiastical officeholders and hierarchy; the rigorist demands on all Christians, excluding many from the universal redemptive will of God; and the rejection of the authority of Scripture over the prophets.^[24]

As a result of being condemned heretical by the church, Montanism gradually disappeared. Or at least so it appeared. Some present-day scholars have considered Pentecostalism as having its antecedent in this movement.^[25] It may also be observed that other Holy Spirit focussed movements such as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) may also has some similarities to Montanism. Before comparing and contrasting these movements with Montanism and Tertullian, it will be helpful to understand how Tertullian’s pneumatology developed out of this movement to get a better grasp of how the Holy Spirit was understood during this time in history.

Montanism and Tertullian’s understanding of the Trinity/Pneumatology

            Some scholars suggest that Tertullian completely left the Catholic church for Montanism, but it is equally possible that Tertullian never left the Catholic church at all.^[26] Nowhere in his writings does Tertullian challenge the notion of the Catholic hierarchy and he does not urge his friends to leave the church to join him in Montanism.^[27] This would align with the notion that Montanism initially arose from within the confines of the Catholic church, and it is possible that Tertullian found a measure of congeniality within Montanism rather than being particularly influenced by it.^[28] David Rankin suggests that Tertullian “probably never broke away from the Catholic church but carried on his campaign against what he saw as the decreasing rigour in its life from within its bounds.”^[29] It is possible, therefore, that Tertullian’s involvement in Montanism was similar to being a part of a “church within the church” and might point to how the Catholic church at this time may have lacked an element of the Holy Spirit, and discipline, which Tertullian found within Montanism. While Montanism would eventually overexaggerate the authority of the Prophetic gift of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic church may have placed too little emphasis on the Holy Spirit, which Tertullian saw as problematic. In truth, the Catholic church and Christian orthodoxy owes some gratitude to the Montanists emphasis on the Holy Spirit, as this may have aligned with/influenced Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeus which led him towards a trinitarian rather than a binitarian view of God.^[30]

Through Montanism, Tertullian may have “learned to a greater degree to think of the ‘Paraclete’ as a person, the binitarian-monotheistic undercurrent makes the transition to a metaphysical economic trinitarian one.”^[31] This shift from binitarian to trinitarian is extremely important in the development of orthodox doctrine, as this trinitarian understanding of God would eventually find its way into the assertion of the counsel of Nicaea. Tertullian may be observed, therefore, as balancing on a tightrope that held together the tension of the Catholic church’s underemphasis of the Spirit and Montanism’s overemphasis of the Spirit which eventually led to the development of Trinitarian language that we now know as orthodox Christianity. While he did not do this perfectly, and Tertullian may have veered into heresy in a few ways himself, he can nevertheless be commended for how he sought to bridge the gap between these two extremes.

            Montanism placed the authority of prophecy inspired by the Holy Spirit over and above the authority of Scripture. To a certain degree, Tertullian may have held this view.^[32] However, it needs to be established that Tertullian and the earliest Montanists actually held a high regard for Scripture. Rankin observes that,

Montanism for Tertullian did not seek to replace the Scriptures; it sought rather only to illuminate and support them by removing the dangers presented by those ambiguities which are regularly and wilfully seized upon by the heretics. The original Montanists – and Tertullian himself – saw themselves as even more faithful to the sacred texts of the Apostles than the Catholics.^[33]

In developing his doctrine of the Trinity, Tertullian interacts rigorously with Scripture. This can be easily observed in his prosopological exegesis in illuminating the divine persons behind many Old Testament (OT) passages in his treatise against Praxeus and his modalistic Monarchianism that threatened to collapse the distinctions between the members of the Godhead.^[34] To establish the presence and “distinctiveness” of the Trinity within all of Scripture, Tertullian notices within Psalm 110:1, Isaiah 45:1 and Isaiah 53:1 that it is the Holy Spirit speaking about the Father and the Son. Tertullian writes concerning these passages,

So, in these texts, few though they be, yet the distinctiveness of the Trinity is clearly expounded: for there is the Spirit himself who makes the statement, the Father to whom he makes it, and the Son of whom he makes it.^[35]

The depth and insightfulness that underscore Tertullian’s recognition of the persons of the Godhead in these OT texts reveal that most of Tertullian’s understanding of the Spirit and his concomitant development of the Trinity was established vis-à-vis rigorous interaction with the Scriptures. For Tertullian, the Spirit was undoubtedly a part of the Godhead. How did he view the role of the Spirit?

            There are a couple of ways in which Tertullian understood the role of the Spirit which are helpful for this discussion. The first, which might be heretical, is that the Spirit produces discipline and ascetism within the church. The second role is the leading of the Christian into truth in understanding the mystery of the Father and the Son.

Rankin observes how later in his life, Tertullian became concerned with discipline within the church, and he viewed the Holy Spirit as being equally as concerned with discipline.^[36] This understanding of the role of the Spirit likely motivated his distaste towards those he called “natural men” who raised controversy with the Spirit because they were enthralled with “voluptuousness” and were “bursting with gluttony, causing them to hate fasts.”^[37] It would seem, based on Drobner’s previous analysis of why Montanism was deemed heretical,^[38] that this view of the Spirit was rejected as heretical by the Catholic church, at least when taken to ascetic extremes. The rejection of this view by the church might align with Paul’s perspective on ascetism in his letter to the Colossians, where he writes,

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.^[39]

This perspective on ascetism, however, does not entirely remove the need for discipline, as Paul describes to the Ephesian church how Christ died so that, “he might sanctify her by the washing of water with the word so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:26-27, ESV). There is therefore a desire within the Godhead for the church to be purified, and discipline does lead to purification (Heb. 12:11). It might be concluded then, that Tertullian’s view on the role of the Spirit bringing about discipline within the church is true within moderation, as long as it doesn’t lead into extreme ascetism.

            Tertullian also understood the Spirit as revealing the Father and the Son. This belief can be observed in his writings against Praxeus.

The Holy Spirit, the third name of the deity and the third sequence of the majesty, the preacher of one monarchy and also the interpreter of the economy for those admire the words of his new prophecy, and the leader into all the truth which is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the Christian mystery.^[40]

From this statement, it can be observed that Tertullian understands the Spirit’s primary purpose as guiding Christian’s into an understanding of the Trinity. The Spirit speaks to testify to believers regarding the mystery of the Trinity.^[41] This understanding of the role of the Spirit aligns closely with John 16:13-15 where Jesus describes how the Spirit will “guide you into all the truth” and how the Spirit will glorify Jesus. This role of the Spirit is also supported by Galatians 4:6, where the Spirit is described as crying out “Abba! Father!” from within the believer. The Spirit illuminates Jesus and the Father in the heart of the Christian. As already discussed, Tertullian would also observe how the Spirit functions in this way in Psalm 110:1.^[42]

            Tertullian’s ability to walk the tightrope between Catholicism and Montanism is admirable. The Catholic church underemphasized the Holy Spirit, which was a problem and the Montanists overemphasized the Spirit, which became heresy. This study reveals how both these extremes can be dangerous. Too little emphasis on the Spirit, and one can end up with a binitarian view of the Godhead. Too much emphasis on the Spirit can lead to a diminution of Scripture and extreme ascetism. The final section of this paper will evaluate how this discussion on Tertullian, Montanism and the Holy Spirit might inform the thinking and practice of present-day charismatic movements.

Tertullian, Montanism and Present-Day Charismatic Movements

Pentecostalism

            It has been accepted and argued by some that Montanism is one of the Pentecostal antecedents.^[43] A scholar from within Pentecostalism argues the following.

Montanism can be recognized as a healthy renewal movement, not containing any heretical doctrine or practice, being aware of the eschatological imminence and the continuance of the work of the Holy Spirit, and in particular the gifts of prophecy and speaking in tongues upon which modern Pentecostals give emphasis.^[44]

This view of Montanism is a stretch. This scholar rightly pointed out how “prophecy, asceticism and martyrdom” were all part of the early Christian tradition but falsely assumes that the only reason the movement was made heretical was because of its “attack” against “ecclesiastical authority in terms of canonization and hierarchy.^[45] The Catholic church did not seem to have an issue with the use of the spiritual gifts, which included prophecy. This is evidenced by the Bishop of Rome’s initial acknowledgment of Montanus’ prophetic gift.^[46] What caused Montanism to be considered heretical was the “sole authority of the prophet” and the “rejection of the authority of Scripture over the prophets.”^[47] For Pentecostal’s to willingly draw comparisons to Montanism is to neglect the danger of potentially elevating the spiritual gift of prophecy over and above the authority of Scripture.

            It may be helpful to think about this within the domain of Aristotle’s three modes of persuasion. It can be observed that within Pentecostalism, there may be a danger of allowing the pathos (emotion) of the spiritual gifts and prophecy to be more persuasive in shaping ones understanding of the Godhead and theology than the ethos (authority)and logos (reason/logic) of Scripture. If Pentecostals wish to view Montanism as their antecedent, they may do well to follow in Tertullian’s footsteps, who recognized the importance of the spiritual gifts, including prophecy, but nevertheless continued to allow his theology to be shaped predominantly by the authority and reason of Scripture.

New Apostolic Reformation

            The world’s leading authority on Montanism at the moment is William Tabernee. In an article reviewing three of his volumes on this subject, Cecil Robeck Jr. observes how Montanism may share some parallels to the New Apostolic Reformation which places a high emphasis on the “spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic.”^[48] Within this movement, there has been a noticeable shift in where leaders find authority. From 1970 to 1980 many charismatic pastors, evangelists and missionaries enrolled in doctoral programs and sought the title “Doctor” because it conferred a level of authority.^[49] There has been a shift, however, and no longer do charismatics seek the title “Doctor” but rather the title “Apostle” and Prophet” as those who carry that title have a kind of spiritual power and unquestionable authority within some circles of the church.^[50]

In a book on Christian leadership, author Reggie McNeal presents this “New Apostolic Leadership Model” in a favorable light, pointing out a handful of significant character traits which typify this “new tribe of Christian ministers.” He describes these apostolic leaders as missional, kingdom conscious, team players, entrepreneurial, “schooled by the business culture”, people developers, visionaries and spiritual.^[51] McNeal describes how a couple standout features of these leaders is that most of them have not been trained by bible colleges or seminaries but have garnered their leadership qualities from business community and business culture.^[52] It is this characteristic in conjunction with “spiritual presence and energy that is unmistakably that of Jesus” that rescues them from being “dry purveyors of doctrinal orthodoxy and turns them into vibrant conveyors of welcome and hope to spiritual searchers.”^[53] While McNeal considers these characteristics helpful, scholars Holly Pivec and Douglas Geivatt from Biola University saw some serious problems with NAR leaders lack of biblical training.

“Apostles” and “prophets” lure their followers with the promise of blessings. Blessings are the bait. They claim to have something no other church leaders have. Pastors teach the written word of God and nurture their flocks. But apostles and prophets have the new revelations their followers need to develop miraculous powers, bring God’s kingdom, and fulfill His will on earth.^[54]

This perspective illuminates the potential dangers of heresy within the NAR. If leaders without formal biblical training are claiming to have “new revelation” that isn’t being filtered through the guard rails of “dry doctrinal orthodoxy,” then it can be dangerously easy for them to veer into heresy.

NAR leaders possess some similarities to Montanus who was “burning with fanatical zeal” when he first found Christianity.^[55] Similar to Montanism, a lot of authority is found in the title of “prophet” and “apostle” which these leaders possess. The NAR leaders also claim to have “new revelation” which possesses undertones of Montanism. This “new revelation” may succumb to the same pitfall of Montanism in “assuming an advance beyond the New Testament and the Christianity of the apostles which caused the Bible to suffer depreciation, inasmuch as it is no longer the final utterance of the divine teaching.”^[56] Perhaps the NAR movement could also learn something from Tertullian’s ability to stay committed to fighting off heresy from within the Catholic church, while also not closing himself off to the movement of the Holy Spirit.

From the discussion on Tertullian early in this paper, we know that he had a robust education.^[57] He also refuted many heresies that arose against the Catholic church.^[58] By bringing his educational prowess into the confines of the Spirit filled Montanist movement, Tertullian was able to conceptualize and coin the terms “trinity” and “economy” where were so aligned with orthodox Christianity that those terms helped guide the counsel of Nicaea.^[59] Admittedly, Tertullian may have veered too far into asceticism, and he dispensationalist hermeneutic is questionable, but he nevertheless was able to maintain fairly sound doctrine while also being involved with the Montanists. It should also be noted that Tertullian never challenged the notion of the Catholic hierarchy.^[60] While Tertullian appreciated how the Holy Spirit could help to reveal the precise nature of the Godhead,^[61] he still acknowledged the authority of the church, and the importance of the Scriptures.

The NAR movement would do well to take notes from Tertullian. Because he was well educated and well versed in the doctrines of the early church, he was able to oppose the heresies it was facing. Perhaps NAR leaders ought to appreciate the benefits of a biblical education more deeply. By understanding the traditions and doctrines of the early church, NAR leaders could lessen the likelihood of their “new revelations” wandering off into heresy. In this way, these leaders might actually be able to add some valuable contributions to theology, with the safeguard of church tradition serving as a governor. By acknowledging the traditions of the church, the NAR movement would also reflect Tertullian’s respect for ecclesial authority. If Christian leaders were to combine “burning zeal” with a “dry doctrinal orthodoxy” it is fair to say that the light of Christ would burn all the brighter.

Conclusion

            It is undoubtable that Tertullian’s development of pneumatology and his coining the idea of “trinity” and “economy” has been foundational in the development of Catholic doctrine. The Montanist movement, though eventually condemned heretical, was influential in the development of Tertullian’s pneumatology and trinitarian thinking. In this way, Montanism may have saved the Catholic church from a binitarian understanding of the Godhead. There were therefore positives that arose from Tertullian’s orthodox, erudite mind being immersed in a prophetic, holy spirit focussed movement such as Montanism. Tertullian was able to develop a robust pneumatology that observed all three members of the Godhead within seemingly obscure Old Testament passages. However, as seen in the eventual condemnation of Montanism by the Catholic church, prophetic movements which stray away from the authority of Scripture and stretch the orthodox doctrines of the church can become susceptible to heresy. Modern day charismatic movements would benefit, therefore, from subordinating the gifts of the Spirit and their “new revelations” to the authority of Scripture and the established doctrines of the church.

Notes

^[1] Drobner, Hubertus R. The Fathers of the Early Church: A Comprehensive Introduction. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 153.

^[2] Bell, James. Ancient Faith Study Bible. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bibles, 2019), 1324.

^[3] Drobner, The Fathers of the Early Church, 153.

^[4] Drobner, The Fathers of the Early Church, 153.

^[5] Bercot, David W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers.(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), 639.

^[6] Bell, James. Ancient Faith Study Bible, 1324.

^[7] Bell, James. Ancient Faith Study Bible, 1324.

^[8] Drobner, The Fathers of the Early Church, 153.

^[9] Pelikan, Jaroslav. “Montanism and Its Trinitarian Significance.” Church History 25, no. 2, (1956), 100.

^[10] Thompson, Jeremy, Lists from Church History: Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2022).

^[11] Schaff, Philip and Schaff, David. History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 418.

^[12] González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (HarperCollins, Kindle Edition), 91.

^[13] Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 639.

^[14] Rankin, David. Tertullian and the Church. (Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 44.

^[15] Nestler, Erich. “Was Montanism a Heresy.” Pneuma 6, no. 1, (1984), 75.

^[16] Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 463.

^[17] Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 463.

^[18] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”, 68.

^[19] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”, 67.

^[20] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”, 73.

^[21] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”, 73.

^[22] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”, 73.

^[23] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”, 74.

^[24] Drobner, The Fathers of the Church, 115.

^[25] Kim, Lucien Jinkwang. “Is Montanism a Heretical Sect or Pentecostal Antecedent?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12, no. 1 (2009), 113.

^[26] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 27.

^[27] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 28.

^[28] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 42.

^[29] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 41.

^[30] Pelikan, “Montanism and its Trinitarian Significance”, 100.

^[31] Pelikan, “Montanism and its Trinitarian Significance”, 105.

^[32] Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 461.

^[33] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 48.

^[34] Hughes, Kyle R. “The Spirit Speaks: Pneumatological Innovation in the Scriptural Exegesis of Justin and Tertullian.” Vigiliae Christianae 69, no. 5 (2015), 466.

^[35] Tertullian, “Adv. Praxeus 11” in Tertullian Against Praxeas. ed. A. Souter (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920), 54.

^[36] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 46.

^[37] Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 462.

^[38] Drobner, The Fathers of the Church, 115.

^[39] Colossians 2:18-19, ESV.

^[40] Tertullian, “Adv. Praxeus 30,” 116.

^[41] Hughes, “The Spirit Speaks”, 469.

^[42] Hughes, “The Spirit Speaks”, 467.

^[43] Jinkwang, “Is Montanism a Heretical Sect or Pentecostal Antecedent”, 113.

^[44] Jinkwang, “Is Montanism a Heretical Sect or Pentecostal Antecedent”, 124.

^[45] Jinkwang, “Is Montanism a Heretical Sect or Pentecostal Antecedent”, 123.

^[46] Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 463.

^[47] Drobner, The Fathers of the Church, 115.

^[48] Robeck, Cecil M, Jr. “Montanism and Present Day ‘Prophets.’” Pneuma 32, no. 3 (2010), 413.

^[49] Robeck, “Montanism and Present Day ‘Prophets,’” 414.

^[50] Robeck, “Montanism and Present Day ‘Prophets,’” 415.

^[51] McNeal, Reggie. A Work of Heart: Understanding How God Shapes Spiritual Leaders. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 102-105.

^[52] McNeal, A Work of Heart., 105.

^[53] McNeal, A Work of Heart., 105.

^[54] Pivec, Holly and Geivett, Douglas R. Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church. (Brentwood, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2022), 77.

^[55]  Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 418.

^[56] Nestler, “Was Montanism a Heresy”,73.

^[57] Drobner, The Fathers of the Church, 153.

^[58] Drobner, The Fathers of the Church, 153.

^[59]  Bell, Ancient Faith Study Bible, 1324.

^[60] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 28.

^[61] Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 28. 

References

Bell, James. Ancient Faith Study Bible. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bibles, 2019).

Bercot, David W. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers. (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), 639.

Drobner, Hubertus R. The Fathers of the Early Church: A Comprehensive Introduction. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007).

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation(HarperCollins, Kindle Edition).

Hughes, Kyle R. “The Spirit Speaks: Pneumatological Innovation in the Scriptural Exegesis of Justin and Tertullian.” Vigiliae Christianae 69, no. 5 (2015).

Kim, Lucien Jinkwang. “Is Montanism a Heretical Sect or Pentecostal Antecedent?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 12, no. 1 (2009).

McNeal, Reggie. A Work of Heart: Understanding How God Shapes Spiritual Leaders. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

Nestler, Erich. “Was Montanism a Heresy.” (Pneuma 6, no. 1,1984).

Pelikan, Jaroslav. “Montanism and Its Trinitarian Significance.” Church History 25, no. 2, (1956).

Pivec, Holly and Geivett, Douglas R. Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church. (Brentwood, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2022).

Rankin, David. Tertullian and the Church. (Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Robeck, Cecil M, Jr. “Montanism and Present Day ‘Prophets.’” Pneuma 32, no. 3 (2010).

Schaff, Philip and Schaff, David. History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910).

Tertullian, “Adv. Praxeus” in Tertullian Against Praxeas. ed. A. Souter (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920).

Thompson, Jeremy, Lists from Church History: Faithlife Biblical and Theological Lists (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2022).