The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is all revelation found in scripture

Assuming the translation is accurate and Ireneaus really did say what he meant to say, if Ireneaus believed that perfect Christians spoke in tongues, that would be a strange interpretation to hold to indeed if neither he, nor Polycarp, nor any of the saints he knew spoke in tongues. I do not believe in the initial evidence doctrine, and maybe I should keep this Ireneaus quote from those who do. J




Do you have a source for Irenaeus delivering a letter to Rome to persuade the Eleutherus to have a kind attitude toward the Montanists? In the preface to one of the translations of Irenaeus I read, it said that Irenaeus was trying to persuade Eleutherus against the Montanists. Are you reading the works of a controversial re-intepreter or history with a cessationists axe to grind?


Some of Irenaeus work seems to be directed against the Montanists, if the commentators on the translations above are correct.


The other quotes I have supplied compiled by Eusebius show that Christian leaders in Montanus’ day accepted the gift of prophecy as genuine in the church, but reject Montanus’ version of it.

To all,

I have read of numerous other incidents of various gifts of the Spirit in Ante-Nicene and later times. Can I find an unbroken line of tongues speakers? No, but tongues is not the only gift. Many of the references to gifts of the Spirit are references to miracles, prophecy, visions, and things of that nature. It is one thing to say that you reject the numerous references to certain gifts of the Spirit because of your belief system. It is quite another to say that there are no references.


An interesting work that gives a little light to this subject is Michael Green’s book Evangelism in the Early Church. It is not a book on the gifts per se, but it does deal with several of the references to prophecy, miracles, and exorcism as they related to evangelism in the early centuries of Christianity. I think Green may go to some kind of Presbyterian or Reformed church, if he is still alive.

Assuming the translation is accurate and Ireneaus really did say what he meant to say, if Ireneaus believed that perfect Christians spoke in tongues, that would be a strange interpretation to hold to indeed if neither he, nor Polycarp, nor any of the saints he knew spoke in tongues. I do not believe in the initial evidence doctrine, and maybe I should keep this Ireneaus quote from those who do. J




Do you have a source for Irenaeus delivering a letter to Rome to persuade the Eleutherus to have a kind attitude toward the Montanists? In the preface to one of the translations of Irenaeus I read, it said that Irenaeus was trying to persuade Eleutherus against the Montanists. Are you reading the works of a controversial re-intepreter of history with a cessationists axe to grind?


Was this letter originally written in Latin? I recall that in one of his writings, Ireneaus apologized for his Greek since he had been speaking other languages for some time.


Some of Irenaeus work seems to be directed against the Montanists, if the commentators on the translations above are correct.


The other quotes I have supplied compiled by Eusebius show that Christian leaders in Montanus’ day accepted the gift of prophecy as genuine in the church, but reject Montanus’ version of it.


As for their being false tongues in cults, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There have been false prophets throughout the ages. There were false prophets of Baal in the Old Testament. That does not make the Biblical prophets false. False tongues do not make the tongues of the disciples at Pentecost false. They do not make modern tongues or prophecies false either.

Chrysostom wrote:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxx.html

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that when ye were Gentiles, ye were led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.

This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?

So here is one church father who stated that spiritual gifts had ended.

Schaff states,

Chop Chop

In response to J Edwards who quoted


Why does the author consider these prophets to be 'charismatic.' If they are 'charismatic' then their prophesying comes from grace, charis. Paul does not use the derivative word for 'grace' to describe pagan experiences in I Corinthians 12. He uses another term. He uses charismata to refer to gifts that come from grace.

Do you believe the prophecies of pagans come from grace?

I do not have the original languages of origin, but your source seems to be very selective in this translation when he translates 'prophesy' as 'utter peculiar things' that were not consitent with the tradition of the church. I suspect the translation I quoted of this selection is more accurate. This reminds me of Jack Deere's argument that there was a bit of a conspiracy when someone changed the words from a book on Reformed history to say that one of Knox's mentors and contemporaries had 'sagacious foresight' instead of 'prophesied' as the original work had said. Deere argues that the Reformation in Scotland was accompanied by prophecy and various other 'charismatic' manifestions.



If your point is that Charismatics, who believe in prophecy, are known for exuberant music, then consider the following passage.

Elisha called for music when the kings wanted him to prophesy.

II Kings 3

15. But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.
16. And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches.

Notice that I am the one responding to the illogical conclusion that Hebrews 2:3-4 argues in favor of cessationism. When I consider all scripture as a whole see that miracles are not confined to apostles, or those they laid their hands on, or to the first century. I see in this passage and elsewhere a pattern that the Gospel is often introduced to a new group of people with signs and wonders.

But this verse does not specifically say that miracles continue on. And it says nothing about miracles ceasing either. It does say that when the Gospel was preached to the Hebrews, it was accompanied by signs and wonders. The verse does not say whether signs and wonders continued on, or whether they ceased. To use this verse to support cessationism is illogical. The only person who would agree is the person who already believes in cessationism.

Using this verse to support cessationism is akin to quoting ‘Jesus wept’ and arguing from it that no one should weep today.

In no way does the passage support the idea that there would be no revelations through the Spirit beyond the canon of scripture. This verse says nothing about the New Testament canon. (I use ‘revelation’ in a broad sense, as it seems to be used in scripture. I do not believe genuine prophecies add anything new to the faith once delivered to the saints.)

I asked:
There were 'New Testament prophets' who became prophets AFTER Christ ascended. Do you dispute this point?

Wes, you are arguing against a point I am not making. Genuine prophecies do not add to the finished work of Christ. Adding to the finished work of Christ is a different issue altogether.

And, actually, what I had in mind when I asked that question was not the writing of scripture per se, but the ministry of prophets who prophesied in the church. Maybe some readers of the forum are unfamiliar with the fact that there were prophets in the church. I will quote a few examples.

From Acts 11
27. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
29. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:

From Acts 13
1. Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

From Romans 12
6. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

I Corinthians 14
29. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

From I Timothy
1:18. This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

4: 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.


Most of these prophets did not write scripture. They did not ‘add to the finished work’ of Christ. That is not even the issue here. The fact is that after Christ ascended, there were still prophets in the church. So using Hebrews 1 as an argument against the continuation of prophecy is not a valid argument. That is clearly not the author’s point.

As I have explained earlier, the term ‘revelation’ is used broadly in scripture. I am not advocating prophets adding anything to the Gospel. There were plenty of prophecies in the first century that were not doctrinal in nature. Agabus prophesying with Paul’s belt was not a prophecy about doctrine, though we can learn about the doctrine of prophecy and various other issues by reading this example. If other prophecies of the time were of a similar nature, then many of these prophecies were not prophecies about doctrine.

The real issue is what the Bible teaches about the gift of prophecy and other gifts. If the Bible teaches they are given to the church, then these gifts should not be seen as a challenge to the Bible. Rejecting the true gifts would be disobedience to the scripture.

You make a huge leap here, especially since it is extremely unlikely that this is what Jude had in mind. No doubt, in his time, the Gospel was largely in oral form. His book may have been a late one, but I do not recall reading any arguments that it was the last one finished. If that is the case, then other books of scripture had yet to be written.

It is one thing to argue that the scriptures contain or portray the ‘faith which has once for all been delivered to the saints’ and it is yet another to argue that Jude was specifically referring to the scriptures.

And again, genuine modern prophecy does not change ‘the faith which has once for all been delivered to the saints’ any more than the genuine extra-scriptural prophecies the scripture alludes to.

And that brings me back to my original point in this thread. The Bible refers to several genuine prophecies not recorded in scripture. Therefore, those who argue that extra-scriptural prophecy is a threat the canon have no legs to stand on. The canon shows us that there have been genuine extra-scriptural prophecies. The canon shows us that not all prophetic revelation is included in scripture. (And I use ‘revelation’ in a broad sense. I am not arguing that any doctrines that are an element of our faith are missing. The prophet Samuel told Saul prophetically how he would find his donkeys. If he helped someone else find a horse this way, and it is not recorded in scripture, then this does not mean we are missing anything from our faith.)

Robin wrote


Please look at the first post of the thread. Listed there are numerous examples of scriptures which refer to prophecies and revelations not recorded in scripture. Therefore, if the Bible shows that God gave revelations outside of scripture in the past, it is illogical to conclude that all genuine revelation must be in scripture.


These are all good questions to consider. But God did not promise us an easy life. The early church had to deal with these issues when it came to prophecy. No doubt the Thessalonians asked difficult questions.

But these questions, and the fact that it is difficult to determine whether a prophesy is genuine or not is no excuse for disobeying scripture.

I Thessalonians 5
19. Quench not the Spirit.
20. Despise not prophesyings.
21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22. Abstain from all appearance of evil.

In spite of the fact that the Thessalonians might have difficulty determining true or false prophecies, Paul commanded them to despise not prophesyings, and to prove all things.

Sure, it is an easier, more comfortable idea to a lot of people to think that since the canon is complete, they do not have to consider whether a prophecy is try or false anymore. And it can be scary to think you might have to determine whether a prophecy is really from God.

But arguing a case based on the alternative being too scary or too uncomfortable to be true is fallacious reasoning.

If you argue that because the canon is complete, and we have revelation from God in the New Testament, isn’t illogical if that leads you to believe that you do not have to obey this revelation from God? …that we do not have to obey what the New Testament says about prophecy because we have the New Testament?

Cessationism based on the closing of the canon seems to be a Johnny-come-lately doctrine. It is something formulated and popularized during and after the Reformation, possibly partly in reaction to some false prophecies going around during that time.

And it is not a scriptural concept, either, considering the bible plainly shows that not all prophecy is in scripture. It is not a logical to say all the sign gifts have ceased since scripture says nothing about miracles and healing ceasing, and does not divide the gifts neatly into sign and non-sign gifts.

The Bible does not teach that signs were to confirm the scriptures, per se. God did bear witness to the early preachers of the Gospel with signs and wonders, but scripture does not restrict God doing this to the apostles or even those who immediately heard the word. And being a sign to unbelievers is not the only role of the gifts, including miracles. I Corinthians 12 teaches that gifts are for the edification of the church.

Futhermore, common sense tells us that reading about a miracle does not have the same impact as seeing one. If signs and wonders are unnecessary because if they would not have believed Moses, they would not have believed if God raised one from the dead, then this would apply just as much during the age when the apostles were doing miracles. For whatever reason God chose, and sometimes chooses, to draw people to be interested in hearing the Gospel through signs and wonders.

I think you should define terms. If by ‘Charismaticism’ you mean having a big hairdo and going on TV asking for a lot of money, that is one thing. If you mean belief in the gifts of the Spirit, that is another.

If we go by scripture, we will believe in gifts like tongue, healing, and prophecy, because the Bible talks about them. The idea that the completion of the canon of scripture would end these gifts is not scripture. For example, it is not a reasonable interpretation of I Corinthians 13, in which Paul describes his state before the coming of the perfect as childhood and his state afterward as like adulthood. We are not more mature than Paul now, because we have the scriptures, and Paul wrote about himself, not his readers, in his illustration.



I am sure you can find many examples of false, possibly even demonic prophecies and other things. If there is a false prophet who is able to do signs, where would he try to sneak in the church? In a church that did not believe in prophets or signs, or in a church that did not? I think the answer is obvious. In the first century, the churches believed in spiritual gifts. There were genuine manifestations of them. But that did not keep false prophets and teachers from doing their best to infiltrate the ranks of the saints. On some cases, they met with some degree of success. John received genuine prophetic revelation during a time period when a woman who claimed to be a prophetess in another location was teaching things that angered the Lord and led people to sin. Her false prophecies or teachings did not make Johns true revelations untrue, or the revelations of the other prophets John said would come in the end. (Even a preterist with a very early date for the close of John would need to acknowledge that the two witnesses would prophesy after the book of Revelation was completed.)


You need to be careful with this attitude as well lest you call the genuine work of the Spirit the work of the Devil. When Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils, Jesus warned them that whoever spoke a word against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. The early church took this teaching seriously, as you can see from my quote to Irenaeus. The Didache warns that it is possible to commit the unpardonable sin by trying a prophet who is speaking by the Spirit.

J. Edwards

Whether you consider Irenaeus experiences to be contaminated or not, there is enough evidence in the Eusebius' quotes I provided that the gift of prophecy was accepted in the church at that time. And I did supply you with that quote that, after Montanus' death, when the Montanists could not provide any prophets of their own, someone from the 'Great Church' used the fact that prophecy was to continue until his own age as evidence.

It would seem your historical commentator disagrees with the one who wrote the intro for the one I quoted.

If you really were interested, you would get _The Spirit and the Church_ by Burgess for a rather comprehensive compilation of references to gifts of the Spirit in Ante-Nicene times.

The Shepherd of Hermas was a work written sometime in the second century, some suppose around 140 AD. The author tells of conversations with an angelic being.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of the Shepherd of Hermas

If the church, in general, was cessationist, then 'charismatic' books like the Shepherd would not have been so popular and widespread and often held in high regard by church leaders.

Ok, so we are done with Irenaeus and now to Eusebius.


First, the author here has imposed his views of non-cessationalism in the foot note (I will cover that further down the page). Second, the author here does not fully agree with you. Look at the highlighted parts:


Now your own source speaks of certain ECFs that saw the gifts as GONE, (i.e. Clement and Origen). Of course, I disagree with some of the speculation of your source as well (marked above in italics, but repeated here for convenience): “To say that there were none such at this time would be rash” and “Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them,” etc.

The following is a description of Montanus and his followers by Eusebius in his History of the Church. It speaks of the Church’s view:

Eusebius states that the Church in attempt to try the spirits, looked at the rules established by Paul in his inspired wittings (passed down from generation to generation) and dismissed what they were seeing as false—from Satan. There is no acceptance here of tongues by the Church!

Again, Eusebius says of Montanus:

According to Eusebius, this practice of tongues speaking was totally contrary to the practice of the Church. Indeed, Montanus and his followers were excommunicated from the Church.

Irenaeus wrote the following concerning the second century heretic Marcus:


Eusebius described the birth and early growth of the movement:

Doesn't it seem odd that the only references to tongues in this period of Church history are from a cult? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

False logic. The Corinthian correspondence was more popular and more widely accepted than the Shepherd of Hermas, and it has the most mention of the miraculous gifts of any of the canonical books. The problem is that many thought the Shepherd to be an earlier book than it actually is!

Oh yes, the great Mormon the Shepherd of Hermas. Heresies went from one congregation to another back then and had a hard time being stopped (i.e. limited communication and orthodox leadership). Moreover, we must remember that correct doctrine was in the process (1) of being developed (2) normally in response to heresies, and (3) took time to be discussed and disseminated (like a Presbyterian Church <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />). The Shepherd of Hermas was one of the most popular books produced in the early Church, and for a time it was frequently quoted and regarded as inspired. Irenaeus calls the Shepherd of Hermas 'scripture' in Adversus Haereses 4.20.2. Though Clement of Alexandria constantly quoted with reverence the Shepherd; yet he repeatedly apologizes, when he has occasion to quote it, on the ground that "many people despise it" (Wikipedia). In part it was popular because of the persecutions of the time and people were reaching out for whatever soothed them—the Left Behind series. Indeed, the church has always had those that have had “itching ears” (2 Tim 4:3). However, mass reading does not make correct doctrine (i.e. Catholic Theology, etc). And mass reading does not mean that every part of the book was read with the same intensity—most today rarely read the Old Testament—though, unlike the Shepherd, it is inspired!

Have you ever read the Introduction to the Shepherd? Like Pentecostalism today, for the Shepherd to be received the listeners were re-taught false doctrine, look: “But the tongues were ceasing, as the apostle foretold; and they who professed to speak by the Spirit were beginning to be doubted. “ Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live forever?" It was gratifying to the older men, and excited the curiosity of the young, when the reader stood up, and said, "Hear, then, the words of Hermas” [Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.a.]. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Typical charismatic scare-tactic!

The Pharisees who accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul were well aware by Whom He was truly casting out demons! (Because demons aren't cast out by Satan!) They were not interested in the truth, but rather in slandering and inhibiting the work of God, which was undeniably happening before their very eyes.

For those looking for the original text it is located here.

Though the word “Charismatic” comes from the Greek word for grace, it does not mean that all Charismatic activity is from God—the Book of Corinthians dismisses this as pure rubbish. Paul was correcting the Charismatic activity at Corinth. (Demonic; 1 Cor 12:3). ‘Charis” is used in several other words as well (i.e. charlatan, “a person who pretends to have skills or knowledge that they do not have”). There are false gifts (dumb idols, 1 Cor 12:2) and well as genuine gifts. The author was clearly referring to that which was false. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

J Edwards wrote,

J Edwards, the quote in question was about prophesying in a manner contrary to the tradition passed down from the beginning of the church, not speaking in tongues.


The commentator who wrote that the believers of this age were not unfamiliar with prophecy probably did so because of the other references to contemporary prophecy in the writings of that time. I am over here in Indonesia with limited access to literature on the subject. If you want proof of references to prophecies and other spiritual gifts during this time period, check out The Spirit and The Church:Volume I Antiquity by Burgess.


The commentator of one of the quotes also argued for ecstasy being a Biblical, but largely forgotten practice of this time. It leaves one to wonder what is meant by ‘ecstacy.’ If Montanus were foaming at the mouth, wallowing around on the floor, that may have been a different thing from what the sons of the prophets at Shiloh did.

J Edwards also wrote,

Paul uses a form of ‘pneumatikos’ to describe the ‘spiritual gifts’ of v. 1 and 2, and switches to forms of ‘charisma’ in verse 4 when he starts speaking specifically of the gifts of the Spirit. In I Corinthians 14:32, Paul also uses a form of ‘pneuma’ when he says that the ‘spirits’ of the prophets are subject to the prophets. If he has in mind to contrast pagan ‘spiritual gifts’ with Christian ‘spiritual gifts’, pehraps he used pneuma to refer to a wider category so as not to identify pagan spiritual gifts as coming from grace.


Covenant in Blood

Good point. I recently came across early arguments that Hermas was written by a Hermas mentioned in scripture. But apparently others believed it to be written by a later Hermas. My point was not that Hermas was inspired, or even completely theologically correct. I have not read the whole work. My point was that if works like this were accepted, then it showed a belief that charismatic experiences were accepted. But if you argue that people believed it was from an earlier time period, that is a valid point. I have no way of knowing what time the average Christian thought it was from. Of course, I have no reason to think that would have made a difference to them since I know of no evidence to think they believed the gifts ceased when the apostles died, and I see evidence that the gifts did not.

Another work, which I will not quote at this time, is the Didache, which shows that there were itinerate prophets around the turn of the 2nd century.

CovenantInBlood wrote



You can believe that the Pharisees knew who Jesus was casting out demons by if you wish, but the Bible does not tell us. I do not know if it was the same group of Pharisees, but on other occasions when Jesus encountered scribes and Pharisees who opposed Him, He pointed out that they did NOT believe in Him or Who He claimed to be. So it seems highly unlikely that these Pharisees knew He was who He claimed He was, and still opposed Him as they did.


And even if they knew He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God, the point is irrelevant. Jesus said that “whosoever” speaks a word against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come. He did not say that “those who know who I am casting demons out by” who blaspheme the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven. “Whosoever” includes people who knew, people who did not know, second century Caesars, medieval Muslims, first century Pharisees, 21st century blue collar workers—everybody.

Btw, if this discussion grows any further than this, shouldn’t we start another thread?