The New Prophecy: Echoes of Montanism in the New Apostolic Reformation

In 1994, a Fuller Seminary professor studying church growth coined a term for a movement he believed encapsulated the most radical development in church history since the Reformation. In his telling, this movement reached further back than the Reformation. Its roots lay in the age of the New Testament apostles, and its goal would be to recover the Great Commission by restoring something crucial that had been lost for nearly two millennia: the church offices of apostle and prophet. The professor was C. Peter Wagner (1930–2016), and the name he coined was the “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR). Wagner not only named the NAR, but became its unofficial spokesman, helping it to grow into a movement that today boasts some of the fastest-growing churches in the world. How new, though, is the New Apostolic Reformation?

Eighteen hundred years ago, another movement entered the stage of church history. This movement would become known as Montanism, named after its founder, Montanus. He first rose to prominence around AD 172, claiming that he and others of his followers were prophets bringing a fresh outpouring of inspired revelation to the church. The early church was not convinced. Mainstream orthodox Christians ardently opposed Montanism, such that by the third century, the church had firmly placed Montanism in the category of heresy.

While the NAR displays a number of distinctive (and troubling) similarities to such aberrant movements in church history, in this essay I will focus on just one: the continuing prophetic office. Both groups share a belief in progressive, authoritative revelation mediated through prophets, and both officially hold that this new revelation illuminates and supplements Scripture without superseding it. In doing so, however, Montanism and the NAR functionally elevate prophecy to the same level as Scripture. Because Montanism and the NAR share a commitment to an ongoing, revelatory prophetic office, the classic Christian opposition to Montanism based on the church’s rejection of new authoritative prophecy also applies to the New Apostolic Reformation.

Progressive Revelation and the Prophetic Office

The distinctive Montanist emphasis on continuing prophecy is evident from the name the movement preferred for itself: the New Prophecy. This name highlights two dimensions of Montanism. First, the movement was innovative; Montanus and his followers believed there was a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit in their day. Montanists viewed the Holy Spirit’s new operation as akin to the first outpouring during the apostolic age yet distinct from it. Second, Montanists believed the Holy Spirit communicated additional, authoritative revelation through the New Prophecy.

Indeed, the surviving oracles of Montanus demonstrate that he believed he spoke the very words of God. The fourth-century church father Epiphanius transmitted the following two oracles of Montanus: (1) “‘I am the Lord God, the Almighty, dwelling in a man’” and (2) “Neither angel nor messenger, but I the Lord, God the Father, have come.” These proclamations indicate that Montanus and other adherents of the New Prophecy saw their oracles as more than mere biblical interpretations or applications—more than premonitions or even summaries of previous visions. Instead, they intended the church to receive their oracles as fresh utterances of the voice of God with binding authority.

The role of a Montanist prophet was to mediate new revelation as God’s mouthpiece, after the model of the Old and New Testament prophets. As one writer from the early church asserted, “They called us slayers of the prophets because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those that the Lord promised to send to the people.” The promise referenced here is in Matthew 23:24 where Jesus said he would send prophets who would be persecuted and killed. Montanists saw themselves as the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise. Like the prophets who also endured persecution before them, Christ had commissioned them to deliver new revelation to the church. The key point here is that Montanists did not merely believe in ongoing prophecy but in a continuing prophetic office commissioned by Christ to bring ongoing revelation to the church.

Today’s proponents of the NAR, too, believe their prophets receive direct new revelation. Montanists preferred to designate themselves as the New Prophecy because they represented a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit who inspires prophetic ministry. The NAR also sees itself as a new outpouring of the Spirit’s work. Wagner claimed that in 2001, the reestablished offices of apostle and prophet had reached sufficient recognition in the church to inaugurate what he termed the Second Apostolic Age. The Second Apostolic Age parallels the First Apostolic Age, lasting for the first two hundred years of the church because the Holy Spirit was once again inspiring the work of prophets and apostles. Regarding prophets in particular, Wagner held that while the gift of prophecy had existed throughout church history, properly speaking, “during the 1980s, the gift and office of prophet began to surface in churches” (emphasis added). Wagner believed that the prophets of the NAR not only shared the gift of prophecy that the Old and New Testament prophets had but also filled the ordained ecclesiastical office of prophet.

Fundamental to this understanding is his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12:28 (NIV), where Paul states that “God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets,” and of Ephesians 4:11, where he similarly says that “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets” to the church. According to Wagner, these passages indicate that of “those who have the gift of prophecy, a certain few come to be recognized by the body of Christ as having the office of prophet.” NAR prophets are not simply everyday Christians or church leaders who receive supernatural insights from God; rather, reminiscent of Montanist prophets, they are unique, divinely ordained officers in the church delivering the very utterances of God afresh. In other words, Wagner’s claim that the prophetic office has reemerged in the NAR aligns the movement with the Montanist understanding of the re-establishment of the prophetic office. Both represent new prophetic movements distinct from the original apostolic age yet parallel to it; both claim authority that elevates their prophets to the level of those who delivered inspired revelation in the biblical past; and both movements assert that any opposition to their prophets constitutes opposition to God’s promises in Scripture.

New Revelation Formally Subordinate to Scripture

One may object that while NAR prophets claim to receive direct revelation from God, they do not believe that this revelation supersedes the Scriptures. For example, Bill Hamon, a prominent prophet in the NAR, holds this view. In their book A New Apostolic Reformation?, R. Douglas Geivett and Holly Pivec explain that Hamon believes NAR prophecies are merely a recovery of apostolic truths lost in the Middle Ages. For Hamon, the NAR is not discarding the Scriptures in favor of new revelation. Instead, the new revelation is a fulfillment of what has gone before. Rick Joyner, another NAR prophet, maintains the same position as Hamon, asserting that one cannot establish any new doctrine from a prophecy or vision since only Scripture has that authority. Similar convictions feature in statements of faith from NAR-aligned organizations. It seems, then, that NAR proponents maintain the historic Christian view that the Scriptures are the inerrant, infallible word of God and the ultimate authority on matters of doctrine. Does this admittedly high view of Scripture sufficiently distinguish the NAR from the Montanist movement? In reality, Montanists maintained a similar stance toward their prophecies in relation to Scripture.

Like the NAR, the Montanist movement viewed new revelation as a supplement to the Scriptures, not a replacement. This was the view that the church father Tertullian held after he came under Montanist influence later in life. Tertullian emphasized the Holy Spirit’s (or Paraclete’s) use of prophecy in guarding the church against error.

It was fit and proper, therefore, that the Holy Ghost should no longer withhold the effusions of His gracious light upon these inspired writings in order that they might be able to disseminate the seeds of truth with no admixture of heretical subtleties and pluck out from it their tares. He has accordingly now dispersed all the perplexities of the past, and their self-chosen allegories and parables, by the open and perspicuous explanation of the entire mystery, through the new prophecy, which descends in copious streams from the Paraclete.

Tertullian’s point here is that the New Prophecy illuminated past revelation, giving the church an authoritative interpretation of Scripture’s meaning. Tertullian maintained a high regard for the “inspired writings” of the apostolic age while believing that the New Prophecy provided a divinely communicated “perspicuous explanation” of those writings. This understanding of prophecy parallels that of Bill Hamon, who believes that NAR revelation illuminates Scripture without laying any new doctrine. Proponents of Montanism recognized the New Prophecy in much the same way that proponents of the NAR describe the pronouncements of their own prophets. For both groups, new prophetic revelation does not technically provide new doctrine, nor does it put aside any previous revelation. Instead, new revelation should be interpretive, providing a divine hermeneutic to understand the meaning and application of Scripture. Like the ancient church, however, we must recognize that functionally neither group limits the authority of prophecy in the way they claim.

New Revelation Functionally Elevated to Scriptural Coauthority

While prophecy was supposed to be merely interpretive for Montanists, it operated in the teaching and life of their communities in a way that was as authoritative as the Law, Prophets, Gospels, and Epistles. According to Tabbernee, even Tertullian conceded that Montanist prophecy constituted new Scripture in some sense and that Montanists viewed their prophets’ revelations as the final complete revelation for the church. Tertullian claimed that the righteousness of God progressed from natural law to the Law and Prophets, to the Gospels, and then finally to a mature state in the age of the Paraclete. By speaking of the New Prophecy as revelation’s maturity, Tertullian placed it at the same level of authority as previous Scripture. For Montanists, how can one’s understanding of Scripture be complete without interpreting it through the mature lens of the New Prophecy?

Other proponents of Montanism, such as Proculus, formally sought to establish written works of the New Prophecy as “new Scriptures.” Although the evidence is ambiguous, some Montanists may even have gone so far as to say that the New Prophecy superseded the apostolic writings. In any case, the Montanist movement held up the teachings of Montanus and other prophets as the supreme, mature revelation of the Spirit. No matter how much defenders of the movement may have wanted to distance themselves from the charge of introducing novelties to Christian faith and worship, the New Prophecy functionally operated as new Scripture.

Similarly, the NAR elevates its prophetic words to be functionally as authoritative as Scripture. For example, in Ephesians 3:4–5, Paul says to his audience, “In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” Bill Hamon, despite his admission of the Scripture’s superiority we saw earlier, interprets this passage as teaching that Paul “reveals that this anointing for divine revelation was not just given to the prophets of old but has now been equally given to Christ’s holy apostles and prophets in His church.” The logical conclusion is that if modern prophets have the “anointing for divine revelation . . . equally” (emphasis added) with previous prophets, then their words are as authoritative as those of the former prophets. Wagner taught this explicitly, claiming that the Holy Spirit did not stop giving inspired revelation as written in the Old and New Testaments but continues to do so today. Others, like the prominent NAR apostle Ché Ahn, claim that NAR prophecies are not of the same authority as Scripture, while at the same time interpreting them in the same authoritative way one would Scripture.

Geivett and Pivec have pointed out the difficulty in reconciling statements about the supreme authority of Scripture by NAR advocates with the way they treat ongoing revelatory prophecy. If members of the NAR handle prophecy in the same way as Scripture, then this suggests that NAR proponents believe that their prophets’ revelations are of the same nature as Scripture. Just as in the Montanist movement, the NAR’s pronouncements on the formal limits of prophetic authority do not align with the functional authority they give to their prophecies alongside Scripture.

Adopting the Early Church’s Critique

Given these substantial overlaps in doctrine and practice regarding the renewal of the prophetic office and ongoing revelation, it naturally follows that many of the same arguments that the ancient church leveled against Montanists are now once again applicable to the New Apostolic Reformation.

One of those arguments is that the apostolic age marked the end of new revelation and, therefore, the prophetic office. According to the third-century presbyter Hippolytus, Montanists acted as if their new revelation was “something more” than that given in the Law, Prophets, Gospels, and Letters. But what other word from God should a Christian seek? For Hippolytus, there could not be a fuller or greater revelation following the apostolic age and the fullness of biblical revelation. Epiphanius related that the Montanists accused their opponents of not receiving the “gifts of grace,” including the gift of prophetic revelation. He responded by stating that the church had already received the “real gifts’’ of prophecy, which were “tried in God’s holy church through the Holy Spirit, and by prophets and apostles, and the Lord himself.” Epiphanus believed prophetic revelation had already come to the church and been proven valid: prophetic revelation received its completion during the apostolic age. Similarly, the fourth- to fifth-century church father Jerome believed that Jesus’ promise to send prophets was fulfilled in the time of the twelve apostles. Jerome appealed to Peter’s declaration in Acts 2:14–18 that the outpouring of the prophetic gift had arrived at Pentecost. “If, then, the apostle Peter . . . has expressly said that the prophecy and promise of the Lord were then and there fulfilled, how can we claim another fulfillment for ourselves?” Thus, the prophets Jesus promised to send came with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, brought divine revelation and interpretation, and then ceased their work at the close of the apostolic age.

If revelation ceased with the apostles, as the early church contended, then the NAR likewise cannot legitimately claim new revelation two millennia later. Wagner’s view that the prophetic office returned to the church in the 1980s does not agree with Hippolytus, Epiphanus, Jerome, and the rest of the fathers who contended that the New Prophecy must be a false prophecy because the final prophetic revelation for the church came in the time of the apostles. However, proponents of the NAR may respond by claiming that they have not only new prophets but also new apostles. How, then, did the early church understand revelation in relation to apostolic authority?

Undergirding the ancient church’s claim that progressive revelation ceased in the apostolic age was an appeal to the authority of the apostles who were directly, originally, and exclusively commissioned by Jesus. In disputes with Montanists, the early church increasingly turned to the apostles’ authority against that of Montanist revelations. For the early church fathers, the apostolic age marked the end of new revelation because the apostles were the final authority to legitimate new Scripture. Thus the ancient church saw Montanism and its advocacy of new revelation as an affront to the established and secure authority of the apostolic tradition, “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Wagner’s claim that the offices of apostle and prophet reemerged in the last fifty years similarly stands against the early church, which upheld the New Testament apostles as the final authority to deliver new revelation.

Furthermore, opponents of Montanism regularly appealed to the canonically established Scriptures against the New Prophecy. The Muratorian Fragment, written around AD 170, famously provides our earliest-known list of writings recognized by the church as canonical Scripture. The document asserts that nothing after the prophets and apostles is to be considered Scripture, while making allowance for books that Christians may privately read for edification. However, it does not include Montanist writings as part of the canonical or edifying books. Rather, the Muratorian Fragment asserts that the church is to “accept nothing whatever of . . . the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians” (Cataphrygians being another label for the Montanists). This warning against Montanism in the Muratorian Fragment demonstrates that the church equated any acceptance of Montanist prophecy with undermining the inspired and authoritative canon of Scripture. It is true that none of the church fathers accused Montanists of trying to add Scriptures to the canon outright. However, their regular appeal to the canonical Scriptures against Montanism indicates that classic Christian orthodoxy has always believed that any claim to new revelation after the original apostles subverts the established canonical Scriptures of the church.

Conclusion

The New Apostolic Reformation is not all that new. Concerning its teaching of new prophetic revelation from a reestablished prophetic office, the NAR reflects much of what was already practiced by Montanism and rejected by the early church. Authority for the early church was not found in an ongoing prophetic office and most certainly not in an ongoing apostolic office. Revelatory authority rested in the apostles of the New Testament. They delivered the final words of inspired revelation in the documents that make up the canon of the New Testament. Thus contrary to the protestations of many proponents of the NAR, the NAR stands outside the orthodox stream of the church just like the New Prophecy before it. We do not need a fresh revelation from God, because he has already spoken and continues to speak through his living and active word (Heb. 4:12). May we be on guard against any wind of doctrine, old or new, that attempts to build on a foundation other than the one God has already provided (Eph. 2:20).