Good evening. Appreciate Jacob doing my entire introduction. Thus the kind words that he offered at the end. You know, it's been said that doctrine divides. And without question, we probably all know that is the truth. But as has often been repeated, those who stand for nothing will fall for anything. We live in a day in which the word doctrine is almost a curse word. And yet Jude wrote to his readers saying, I felt the necessity to write to you exhorting that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. It sounds like Jude believed if you did not contend earnestly for something, you will fall for anything. The ecumenical movement of our day is alive and well. That is, those who believe that we as Christians ought to just toss out all of our doctrinal differences and for the sake of unity hold hands. But listen, unity apart from truth is compromise. Most of you are aware, we certainly have not hidden it, here at Sovereign Grace, we are committed to the methodical preaching of whole books of God's Word, verse by verse, chapter after chapter, book after book, because we firmly believe that God matures His people through the right preaching of the Holy Scriptures. But that does raise a question then. Why would the elders here at Sovereign Grace, all of whom are passionately committed to sequential exposition of whole books of the Bible, why did we decide to hit the pause button on Romans and on Hebrews this weekend choosing to talk about these historical heresies? Well, that is a good question. And the answer is because we think it's greatly important. I think it was Winston Churchill that once said, those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you'd like proof of that, I just point you to the countless heresies that are being tolerated or perhaps even promoted weekly in churches, ignorantly at times, but sadly not so ignorantly at other times, all around our country today. Every single movement we talk about this weekend, from my sermon here, now, all the way to the final sermon on Sunday, which we have carefully assigned to Blake Thompson, all of these heresies are still alive and well in our day, one way or another. We, as a Christian society, we have failed to learn from history. And sadly, we are repeating it. I truly hope that you're not merely intrigued by all of these books, but we do need to be on guard against all of these unorthodoxies, we might say. Now, as Jacob explained, Elder Brian has assigned me the introduction to the weekend. He has assigned me not one, but two heretical movements in church history, and then he gave me about 40 minutes to do it. And just so you know, for the past two weeks, he has whined and cried about how difficult his subject is, which he assigned to himself. Enough on that. This is about heretics, and Brian is a scholar. If you don't believe me, just ask him. He'll tell you. All right, let's talk about the Montanists and the Gnostics. Here's how I have decided to handle these two groups. I plan to preach a short sermonette on each one of these, focusing on distinct heresies and what the Bible has to say about those things. And then I want to look at the fundamental problem of both groups because I really think it's the same thing. Let's begin with the Montanists. Montanism was named after its founder, a man by the name of Montanus, of all things. Accounts vary somewhat surrounding him, but scholars believe that before his conversion to Christianity, he was a pagan priest, possibly of Apollo, but more likely of Sybil. That is a tradition recorded by an early church father by the name of Jerome. It was around the middle of the 2nd century, around 150 AD, when his ministry as a Christian minister began. Here's actually what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about this movement, and Montanus specifically. He fell into a trance and began to prophesy under the influence of the Spirit, He was soon joined by two young women, Prisca or Priscilla, and Maximilla, who also began to prophesy. And the Encyclopedia Britannica goes on to say, quote, The essential principle of Montanism was that the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, whom Jesus had promised in the Gospel according to John, was manifesting himself to the world through Montanus, and the prophets and prophetesses associated with him." That's out there. That's way out there. Williston Walker, in A History of the Christian Church, he writes this, about 156, Montanus proclaimed himself, listen to this, the passive instrument through whom the Holy Spirit spoke. End quote. the great Baptist historian Thomas Armitage in his ginormous classic work. Here's what he says in A History of the Baptist. He writes, quote, This is a very spurious group. If they were just down the road, we'd be preaching about them all the time. There's a lot more that could be said. Information in our day is everywhere. Log on to Google. You can find it. There's more than enough to discuss. But let's just look at what the Bible has to say about a group like this. Turn in your Bibles to 2 Corinthians 12. I want to focus in particularly on verses 11-13. 2 Corinthians 12, we'll look at verses 11-13. I am reading from the Legacy Standard Version if you wonder. Here's what it says. I have become foolish. You yourselves compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you. For in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even if I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were worked out among you with all perseverance by signs and wonders and miracles. For in what respect were you treated as less than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not become a burden to you? Forgive me this wrong." 1 Corinthians, probably most of you know this, we seem to be much more familiar with Paul's first letter, or first canonical letter, I should say, to the Corinthian church than we are the second letter. The first letter was written to the saints in Corinth primarily to stop this divisiveness that was threatening to explode the church, or perhaps we might say implode the church. But 2 Corinthians was written because Paul realized, perhaps more likely, had been informed that these false prophets had infiltrated the church and had gained some sway among the membership. And so Paul writes this letter to defend his own ministry. You can see here he's defending his own apostleship and he warns against the false teachers. Here in chapter 12, really for three chapters, chapters 10 through 12, Paul is hammering these intruders into the church. We're actually nearing the end of that section here. Well look, the apostle is not pulling any punches. You could see that as we read our text. Because false teaching can kill a church quicker than anything. and deceive many people into believing they are on the pathway to God when they are actually on the wide way that leads to destruction. Notice Paul says, he was in no respect inferior to the most eminent apostles, even if I am nothing. Now, you may not initially catch it, but this is just dripping with sarcasm, referring to these deceivers as the most eminent Apostles. In fact, the ESV actually renders this, I was not at all inferior to these super apostles. And that certainly were what these guys would have believed they were. Paul has already made it clear in this letter, 2 Corinthians. Look back at chapter 11 verse 13. He's made it clear that these men, these false teachers, these supposed super apostles, they were actually, chapter 11 verse 13, they were actually false apostles. Deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. Understand. We're talking about Martinus who believed he was equal to the apostles. The claim to be an apostle, even if you don't use that title, right? Perhaps I should say it this way. Any apostolic claim when you are not an apostle is to align yourself with the false teachers Paul was writing about here in 2 Corinthians. Notice chapter 12 verse 13 again. Paul's concern here is that they were following, or at least being tempted to follow, men claiming to be apostles who weren't apostles. The writer of Hebrews, actually, in chapter 2, he says that the gospel was first spoken by the Lord and then it was confirmed to us by those who heard. God also testifying with them both by signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His will. That is the very thing Paul is saying here in 2 Corinthians. The apostles were given special information communicated directly to them by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and in turn they relayed information that they had through preaching and ultimately we have it today in what we call the New Testament. What did the early church do? You don't have to look very far. Acts chapter 2 tells us exactly what they did. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching. And by that, Luke meant the original apostles, those chosen by Jesus during His personal ministry. It also would include Matthias who replaced Judas, and it certainly would have included the apostle Paul. Listen, Paul's concern for the church at Corinth, the reason he wrote this letter and defended his office as an apostle so vehemently is found in chapter 11 here of 2 Corinthians verse 12. Look at what it says here. But what I am doing, I will continue to do, listen, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be found just as we are in the manner about which they're boasting." Let me read this to you in the Net translation. It's a little clearer. Here's what it says. What I am doing I will continue to do so that I may eliminate any opportunity for those who want a chance to be regarded as our equals." Paul's not pridefully speaking here. But the fact is, Paul was an apostle called by Jesus and sent out. And these men weren't. And it's important that he makes that distinction. Like the Montanists that we're looking at, at least the first group that we're looking at. The intruders at Corinth were making apostolic claims, but Paul makes crystal clear that they were not apostles at all. In fact, they were frauds. Despite what Montanus and his two female prophetesses claimed, they were not passive instruments through whom the Holy Spirit spoke. They were not passive instruments through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, and certainly they were not as directly under the special inspiration of the Spirit as were the apostles themselves. They were not apostles. Montanists nor the two prophets, the two female prophets that followed Him around. That is the historic heresy of Montanism, and it is as dangerous in our day as it was back then. More on that here in just a moment. All right, we better get a little move on, jump up into second gear. I've got one more sermonette, then we'll try to sort of bring things together. Let's talk about the Gnostics for just a few minutes. This should go a tad bit more quickly, at least I hope so. Now just for clarity, you may know someone, perhaps you work with them, who claims to be an agnostic today. But an agnostic is not in any way, shape, or form related to the early Gnostic heresy. The agnostic essentially says he's just not sure about God because the existence or non-existence of a higher power is unknowable. That's what the agnostic believes. But the gnostic is on the far other end of the religious spectrum, believing that he possesses a higher knowledge much more than anyone else possibly could possess. In fact, the term Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means to know. So the agnostic says, you can't know. The Gnostic says, no, I know, and I know most everything. You see, they're on opposite ends. You can see why I said they were opposites. So the Gnostic claimed to live on a higher spiritual plane than all others. He believed himself to be part of a very privileged class of humans, the elite group, which few, very few actually, could become a member. Listen to what Barry Cooper of Ligonier Ministries writes. He says this, quote, To say you were a Gnostic was to say, I know something you don't. I'm in on a secret. I've been enlightened. I've woken up. I'm spiritually on a higher level. He says you get a hint of that in the way Simon Magus is described in the book of Acts. He's been called the first Gnostic and according to Acts chapter 8, he amazed the people of Samaria saying that he himself was somebody great. That was the attitude of superiority, the arrogant attitude of Gnosticism. But there was more to the Gnostic movement than simply this air of superiority. as is common with any group who believes themselves to be above all of us, you know, peons here in Christianity. The Gnostics promoted heresies, blasphemies really, that apparently went unchecked throughout their various clusters. And perhaps their biggest doctrinal deviation was that they espoused this idea that all things spirit are good, And all things physical are bad. Because of that, they flatly rejected that Jesus, the Son of God, could possibly have been truly human. Bruce Shelley, in Church History in Plain Language, he describes the various Gnostic ideas. He writes, quote, "...Christ could have no real contact with matter, so at the baptism of Jesus of Nazareth, or thereabouts, the Christ descended into him. Then at the arrest of Jesus, or thereabouts, it withdrew." What was scourged and slain was not it. That is to say, the true Christ did not suffer and die. That's the Jesus of Gnosticism. Shelley goes on, other Gnostics used different arguments to escape from the dilemma of a human savior. One group insisted that Jesus did not really have a body of all. It was a clever hallucination, end quote. Well, that's certainly interesting since in our day, it's far more common to hear someone deny the deity of Christ than it is for someone to deny the humanity of Christ. But that's precisely what these early heretics did. They denied Christ's humanity, particularly that He had a physical body. Well, let's examine in light of Scripture these two distinctions of Gnosticism, and I want to do it in reverse order, dealing with the second one first. John, the apostle John, the last surviving apostle. He may well have begun to see Gnostic ideas creeping into Christianity before he died. Look with me really quickly over to his first epistle, 1 John. I just want you to lay your eyes on this verse. I want you to see how he introduces the book. He must have thought this was greatly important. Notice in 1 John 1, verse 1, he writes, "...what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and touched with our hands concerning the word of life." Touched with our hands, he says. As I said, it seems to me at least that John is addressing something here, like the early Gnostic heresies that he may have heard about influencing churches. Listen, understand this spirit versus matter dualism was not Christian in any form. in any shape. It was not Christian in any way whatsoever. It came into Christianity from pagan philosophy, from men like Plato. Yet John makes crystal clear that he did not merely see Jesus, which could have been explained away as a hallucination, but he says here clearly that we beheld and touched Him with our hands. Jesus had a body. of this text William Tyndale wrote centuries ago, thus we have in plain and open words a manifest article of our faith that our Savior Christ is very God and very man. That's the miracle of the hypostatic union. That's what Brian and I preached this past Christmas in a little mini-series. I can't work through that entire series. It is available online. If you didn't hear it, I would urge you to go listen to it. But we'll offer this quick definition of the hypostatic union. The hypostatic union refers to the union of Jesus' divine and human natures in one person without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. In other words, Jesus is one person with two natures. One human, one divine, and they coexist. The Gnostics flatly denied Christ's humanity, particularly that He had a body of flesh and bones. And yet in John's Gospel, he could not be more clear when he said that the Word, that is God Himself, Jesus, the second person in the Trinity, the eternally begotten Son, the Word became flesh. And He dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." Listen, the understanding that Jesus is very God and very man, that is foundational Christian doctrine 101. Any denial of that in any form is heresy. It denies the very core of the Christian gospel. Jesus is God. Again, He's the second person in the Trinity. He has forever been the eternally begotten Son, and He always will be. He never has, even for a moment, set aside His deity, and any suggestion of that is simply heretical. But Jesus became a man. fully man in every sense of the term, as much man as any of us are here this evening, the one difference is He was without sin and we aren't. This is why Paul could write to young Timothy with perfect clarity and say, for there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus. Do you remember? You've probably read this and wondered why this event happened, but do you remember after the resurrection when Jesus appeared to the disciples and they thought they were seeing a ghost? Do you remember that? Here's what Luke said happened afterwards. And Jesus said to them, Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself Touch me and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. And while they still were not believing because of their joy, and were still marveling, He said to them, Have you anything here to eat? They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it before them." You ever wonder why Luke recorded it? Jesus ate that fish to prove to them that He had a physical body even after the resurrection. because this is a greatly important truth of the gospel. And yet, along came the Gnostics who completely denied the humanity of Jesus, and so they should have been written off as a cult, as not Christian at all. Nevertheless, sadly, they made inroads into churches because they caught people unaware. They caught them not on guard, not grounded in the truth, open to emotionalism, willing to be told that they were the greatest. Well, what is all this business about special knowledge? What about their being spiritually elite? That had to be some of what pulled these people in, right? Well, first of all, every single time that the disciples began arguing about who was going to be the greatest in the kingdom, Jesus squashed that idea and told them to stop thinking that way. So to view ourselves and or our tribe as superior to other blood-bought Christians is to systematize the very thing Jesus corrected the disciples for doing. We're just beggars. showing other beggars where they can find bread. Let us remember that. Guys, there's not the first word in the New Testament that suggests that some members of God's family in this age are giving insider information that is withheld from other believers. That's what the Gnostics believed, but that's not what the New Testament teaches. Now let me be clear though. I'm not suggesting that there are not some believers who know more than other believers. I'm not saying that at all. That certainly does exist. I mean, first of all, we would not expect a new convert to have the knowledge of a seasoned pastor, for instance. But there's a reason some people do not grow, and that's because they simply do not apply themselves enough to grow. They don't study God's Word the way they ought to. Maybe they fail to study at home, maybe they're not active in a local church, or maybe they're in a church and their pastor doesn't actually preach the Bible, at least not with a lot of depth. That happens. Sadly, far too often. But none of that was the explanation of the Gnostics. That's not what they meant at all. These heretics believed themselves to be elites on a plane higher than others, in touch with information that the lower classes of humans did not even have access to. Listen to what Paul, though, tells his young protege in 2 Timothy 3 and see how this squares with that idea. Paul writes, "...all Scripture is God-breathed, and it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work." I'd say the Gnostics would have struggled with that verse. Listen, if the God-breathed message from God to man, all Scripture, Paul calls it, we call it the Bible. If it is sufficient so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, how is it that some are spiritually elite, containing, possessing insider info, while the rest of us simply do not? How can that be? Listen, either Paul's message to Timothy is true, and the Holy Spirit matures believers through the Word, or there are spiritually elites among us with information we aren't privy to. That's the two options. But those two ideas are completely incompatible. Just to make dead level certain we're on the same page, Paul's words to Timothy were also God-breathed, which means the message of the Gnostics was blatant heresy. That's the only possible conclusion. Guys, listen. All throughout church history, various cults have arisen with all types of belief systems claiming superiority over others. It's easy for me to point to Roman Catholicism and point out that priestly class that believes they're above everybody in that quote-unquote church. But sadly, I think it's probably made its way into a lot of Baptist churches as well. I mean, I've heard people say nobody out there can know what we got going on in here. That is a denial of what Paul wrote to Timothy. Because he says that the Word of God is enough to mature all of God's children thoroughly and equip them thoroughly for every good work. Guys, we need the Word of God and we need it because it is sufficient. We talk about Sola Scriptura a lot, and that's important. We believe Sola Scriptura, but we need to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. It is enough. We don't need anything else. Rather quickly, let me see if I can bring a few applications together after we've talked about these two groups. First, at the forefront. any spurious view about the person and work of Jesus Christ, particularly a denial of His deity or a denial of His full humanity, both of those are heretical and should be flatly rejected as heresy. In fact, a denial on either of those points is to deny the Christian gospel. This is key, I think. There's a common problem going on in both of these groups, and that is that neither of them was satisfied with what God has chosen to reveal to us in the Scriptures. Both of these groups wanted more. The Gnostics believed wholeheartedly that they'd been given truths nobody else had been given. It was that, you've got to be us to know what we know. I did. The Montanists were not far off that. I thought John MacArthur had a good quote in a book everybody in this room needs to read. The name of the book is Strange Fire. It's a good book. Here's what he says. Quote, Montanists was a second century false teacher who gave more attention to the errant prophecies of two women than to Scripture. End quote. Amen. The sad thing is, I think Montanus would fit in quite well in the landscape of American Christianity today. Many, if not most, professing Christians in America would far and away prefer to hear a preacher get in a pulpit and say, God told me to say, fill in the blank. Or, God laid this sermon on my heart and I just can't get it off my mind. They'd far rather hear that than open up to Galatians 1, over the next eight months, we're going to trudge our way through this book. We won't tailor-made messages from God, I dare say, in place of the love letter He has written to us in the Bible. I saw a quote this week. I shared it on social media. Some of you may have seen it. Nate Pickowitz, he said, take even one step off Sola Scriptura and you will inevitably fall into a viper's nest full of error. End quote. Amen. I'll just offer the smorgasbord of denominational madness that's going on in America today as proof that he's right in that. And listen, in the early churches, at least these two spurious groups were sort of isolated. Like, the Martinists were just sort of over there. The Gnostics, they were just over there. But today, they're not fringe movements at all. Those with similar methodology have made their way into almost every congregation in one way or another. Look, our generation is experience-driven. We are that way on vacation, and sadly, we are that way on Sunday morning. And while the charismatics are certainly an easy target here, I'm not just talking about them, if that's what you mean. Let me say this as clearly as I can possibly say it. Any pastor or any church claiming to have extra-biblical revelation outside of this book right here, any pastor or church claiming to have extra-biblical revelation, claiming to have insider information that no other child of God is privy to except them, they are dangerously close to aligning themselves with one of these two groups. The Gnostics are the Montanists. Ezekiel, he condemned the people of his generation. Here's one of the things he condemned them for, Ezekiel 22-28. Speaking of Israel, he said, "'And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, beholding worthless visions and divining lies for them, saying, Thus says Lord Yahweh, when Yahweh has not spoken.'" There is no worse way to take God's name in vain. than to declare you have a message from Him when in fact you don't. If Scripture had been sufficient for them, if it was the final word for the monotonous, they would have realized that there were no apostles among them and they were not receiving special revelation. If the Bible was the final authority, the Gnostics would have embraced the truth about the God-man, Jesus. Not only that, they would have understood that all believers are indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God and capable of understanding God's Word, that they did not possess insider information, they were not an elite society, they were on par with every other blood-bought child of God. George Santayana, he was a Spanish philosopher. He once said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Now as far as I know, Santayana died a committed atheist. But he hit that pretty good, I think. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Maybe though, maybe they'll be better to quote somebody who actually wrote inspired scripture. We'll quote Solomon. He said, That's akin to history repeating itself. There's nothing new under the sun. Guys, listen. We need to learn from these two heretical groups, the Montanists and the Gnostics, but we need to learn what not to do, how not to be. We need to pray that the Lord would enable us to reject emotionalism and embrace the scripture alone as our final authority. And when men make apostolic claims, We need to take note. We need to be aware. And then we need to push back against it. I hope this has been informative to you. This is not normally the way I preach. You know that. This is different. But I hope that it has shown you that these movements, though they're nearly 2,000 years old, they're not merely in the distant past. They exist right now, today, in our community. They are alive and well. And I really hope that this entire conference is a reminder that we, as a church body here, we need to be unified in our promotion of the truth, which means we also have to be unified in our opposition to error. Stand with me, let's sing.