Works of the Nicolaitans

A Brother In Christ

Senior Veteran
Mar 30, 2005
5,528
53
Royal city, washington
✟5,985.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does anyone have any knowledge on who the Nicolaitans are and why Christ was against them?

Revelations
[FONT=comic sans ms, arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1]2:6[/SIZE] but this you have, that you do hate the works of the Nicolaitans, that I also hate[/FONT]

Thanks.

fleshly clergy... romans 6:1-13, 1 peter 5:3, 1 jn 3:18
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are two threads of thought on this...

1. Based on references by early church fathers, Ireneus (writing at about 180 A.D.) and Eusebius, (the earliest Christian Church historian) who wrote about 330 A.D., they were a sexually promiscuous Christian splinter group who took the law of liberty to be licentiousness and based their writings on a misrepresentation of something done by one of the seventy apostles, whose name was Nicholas. His wife had been beautiful and he had given over his lust for her to the church. This got turned around so that the "agape" feasts became love feasts of a differnet kind. If their report is true, this would have spread quickly particularly among the hedonists and the bacchanalians who would have liked to recruit Christians.

2. There is a modern eisegesis of the text popular among Christians who reject the older historical churches such as the Catholics, Orthodox and Episcopalian, that takes the word "niko" - meaning rule and "laos" meaning people. In this interpretation they are saying John hated those who would use the church to rule. In other words, he did not approve of the appointing of bishops and presbyters to administer the mysteries of faith. All Christians shared int he body of Christ equally by the one Holy Spirit. No one is "higher" than anyone else. The only head is Christ.

I don't personally reject either opinion. The text is a prophecy received in a vision about the future, in which there is much symbolism, so there is no need to limit its meaning to its original historical context.

On the other hand, if you will backstep in this thread you will see that there are two sides to whether there ought to be leadership in the church by bishops. One sentiment all seem to agree on is that the true ruler in the church ought to have a servant's heart.
 
Upvote 0
W

wmssid

Guest
1) You will love the bishop as the Lord - Apostolic Fathers.

2) You will not have a love feast without a bishop - Ibid.

3) The bishop rules as the Lord Jesus, and the presbyters (elders) rule as the apostles - Ibid.

REBUKED by John: "Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words ..."- 3 Jn 10.

4) Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch - Eusebius.

5) Nikolaos, a prosylete from Antioch - Acts 6.5.

6) Nikolas was Ignatius was "the original preacher!"

See: Condemnation of "preachers" (messengers/angels) - Col 2.18; 2Tim 2.2; 1Jn 2.27.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1) You will love the bishop as the Lord - Apostolic Fathers.

2) You will not have a love feast without a bishop - Ibid.

3) The bishop rules as the Lord Jesus, and the presbyters (elders) rule as the apostles - Ibid.

REBUKED by John: "Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words ..."- 3 Jn 10.

4) Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch - Eusebius.

5) Nikolaos, a prosylete from Antioch - Acts 6.5.

6) Nikolas was Ignatius was "the original preacher!"

See: Condemnation of "preachers" (messengers/angels) - Col 2.18; 2Tim 2.2; 1Jn 2.27.
Wow, thanks for pointin' that out!:cool:
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1) You will love the bishop as the Lord - Apostolic Fathers.

2) You will not have a love feast without a bishop - Ibid.

3) The bishop rules as the Lord Jesus, and the presbyters (elders) rule as the apostles - Ibid.

REBUKED by John: "Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words ..."- 3 Jn 10.

4) Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch - Eusebius.

5) Nikolaos, a prosylete from Antioch - Acts 6.5.

6) Nikolas was Ignatius was "the original preacher!"

See: Condemnation of "preachers" (messengers/angels) - Col 2.18; 2Tim 2.2; 1Jn 2.27.

That is wrong on a number of levels.

1) You will love the bishop as the Lord - Apostolic Fathers.
Nothing wrong with love. But the text quoted does not mean worship. The Bible also says we are to work as unto the Lord in the same sense. Obviously it (the Bible) does not mean that we are to idolize our jobs.

2) You will not have a love feast without a bishop - Ibid.
This was to protect the flock against those who would take them aside to their own houses and preach another gospel other than the one Paul preached - an unfortunately common occurrence.

3) The bishop rules as the Lord Jesus, and the presbyters (elders) rule as the apostles - Ibid.
Order is always nice. The word "as" is a reference to order. It is not suggesting that they be worshiped. It does mean that they should be respected as ministers of truth.

REBUKED by John: "Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us (apostles) with malicious words ..."- 3 Jn 10.
Interesting translation. Ignatius did not have any malicious words. Neither did he prate against the apostles. So the text does not apply to him.

4) Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch - Eusebius.
Correct. And Antioch was the largest Christian city in the world at that time. He was the most renowned Christian leader of his day. Later Alexandria superceded it.

5) Nikolaos, a prosylete from Antioch - Acts 6.5.
This is a reference to the seven deacons appointed in Jerusalem, not to an appointment to a bishopric in Antioch. Nicholas ws a very common name and there is not any connection between the name Ignatius and Nicholas. The only connection is Antioch - which I pointed out already was the largest Christian city in the world. There was no Christian of any great reputation that did not go there.

6) Nikolas was Ignatius was "the original preacher!"
What a leap!

See: Condemnation of "preachers" (messengers/angels) - Col 2.18; 2Tim 2.2; 1Jn 2.27.[/quote]
Yes, there were fales teachers. They would go about from city to city and preach heresies, mixing Christianity together with pagan relgion, mystery religions and philosophy. It was a problem that kept getting worse. Read Against Heresies by Ireneus and you will see. That is precisely why it was necessary to keep the laity free from them and under the watchful eye of the bishops who were better acquainted with the teaching of the apostles. This was especially so in a day when the New Testament Canon was still in formation, but even afterwards, there was much deliberation and many questions that the church worked together to resolve, such as whether Jesus is God. The Jehovah's Witnesses have the Bible but disagree. The Arians of that day disagreed. But you had some connectivity with the apostles and a church with many bishops in many cities. And they helped resolve important disuputes like the divinity of Christ. They served a very positive role. The presbyters and the rest of the people (the laity) were of less help. But all held to one faith. And that faith was ministered by the bishops, prebyters and deacons - in that order.
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For several years Ignatuius boasted, "I am going to Rome to be a martyr, to fight the beasts. Please do not try to stop me, I want to do this."

But then, Clement of Rome exposed him, "Where is Ignatius? Has anyone heard from him?"
Your view is twisted here too.

I don't find this quote anywhere in Clement. Maybe it is somewhere in the second (pseudo) epistle? The one authentic epistle of Clement was written around 90 A.D.. Ignatius went to Rome sometime between 98-117 A.D.. Eusebius has it at 108 A.D.. If you are trying to suggest Ignatius never showed up in Rome to be martyred, that's the first I've ever heard of it. Also, it was not that he planned to be, but that he was being taken to Rome ...

From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated. —Ignatius to the Romans, 5.

I was able to find something that looked like your quote, but it is not in Clement. It is in John Chrysostom writing in the fourth century.

Oh blessed and happy men, whose names are in the book of life, from whom the devils fled, and heretics did fear them, who (by holiness) have stopped the mouths of them that spake perverse things! But I, like David, will cry out, 'where are thy loving-kindnesses which have been ever of old? Where is the blessed choir of bishops and doctors, who shined like lights in the world and contained the word of life? 'Dulce est meminisse'; their very memory is pleasant. Where is that Evodious, the sweet savour of the church, the successor and imitator of the holy apostles? Where is Ignatius, in whom God dwelt? Where is St. Dionysius the Areopagite, that bird of paradise, that celestial eagle? Where is Hyppolitus, that good man aner Xristos, that gentle sweet person? Where is great St. Basis ...."
(Lib. de Consummatt, Seculi, Inter opera Ephraim Syri.)

The passage goes on at length. If you've got a reference to what you've supposedly got from Clement, I am not able to find your quote. I suspect you are quoting from an urban legend found in the sess pool of anti-orothodox, anti-catholic vitriol, that rarely checks facts. Either way, the quote is anachronistic.

So you are welcome to site your source. Also you are welcome to show where in anything said by Ignatius there is anything heretical spoken, that he can rightly be exposed as one of the false teachers the Bible warns against. I'm certain you will not find any such thing. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

arnievictor

New Member
Aug 10, 2009
2
0
✟7,812.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
forgive me, i came to find out about this term nicolaitans maybe becuz the lord wanted me to know it now.. and he put it in my mind to search.. and i came across this forum - but while reading i found that people were against the shepherds of the lord.. for this i want to clarify certain things:

yes Jesus did say "do not call anyone your father.." one needs to dig deep to find out hidden meanings of the Word Of God and the amazing thing is that there are many meanings to it - that is the power of Gods Word - it works even in the smallest things of your daily life.. but if i would not call my earthly father - my dad - as father dont you think thats wrong? if i would call him by his name - he looses his honor as father - going against the commandment of god "honour your father and your mother" - so certainly Jesus did not meant that.. but Jesus knew what was going to happen in todays time and he spoke saying the above words.. do not bow in front of ant man either - do not give respect to a man more than a man because that respect is for god alone.. because no man is holy - for we are all sinners and also because we all are now made equal by Jesus.. learn the Word of God - no man can say that he/she has read the bible or knows or understood the bible - for even satan had the knowledge about the scriptures and did tempt Jesus thru the word of god - and satan is a spiritual being, not limited by the weaknesses of mortal body like we are - poor memory, lack in concentration and thinking power or perception, not enough wisdom etc etc - yet satan's knowledge was not perfect and he failed infront of Jesus.. So keep reading the bible and keep discussing dear brothers and sisters in christ Jesus..

But,

It is written:
"..Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. Do not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.."[1 Tim 5:17-18]

yes the there is much mention about shepherds - Jesus Himself spoke to Peter "feed my sheep"[John 21:16]

do not criticise the elders because they are doing the Lord's work.. do not muzzle the ox..

but one also has to see that Jesus said FEED my sheep.. The knowledge of the Word Of God is very important but do not snatch away the honour of the annointed of the Lord.. - certainly they are there for those who are hungry - the well-fed ones do not need food..

but a time will come when "..they will be taught by God.." and "..i will pour out my spirit on all flesh.."[Jer. 31:34],[Joel 2:28-29]

the work that these servants of the lord do.. are they not serving you? even if your brother lifts your spirit up when you are depressed is serving you and also he is serving the lord by serving you the lords sheep.. help one another, encourage one another, support and strengthen each other - and with the hope of salvation bind your relations in the name of the lord..

but about the nicolaitans part - i am still not sure.. but one thing i will always keep in mind - not to PERVERT the Word Of God.. and use it wrongly for our own interests and likings - but be always inquisitive of learning more to understand more..

so may God bless you dear sweet children of the lord who are awake, i pray in jesus' name - though we must keep praying - for ourselves - lest we be put to the test.. and also for the church of christ - so that all members of the lord's body may join - leaving none behind - even if one chooses to - i.e. keep praying for that one so that the lord may have mercy and perform a mind-change miracle.. i think the lord did give us a hint, an example - but may the lord forgive me if i am wrong.. but anyways praying is always good.. keep praying!

plz plz plz correct me if im wrong anywhere..

tc
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

Spartan Warrior

Guest
Awesome

THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANES


"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6). "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:15).


When the Lord was showing John on Patmos what the seven churches would be like, He commended the church at Ephesus because they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which the Lord also detested. In Pergamos, the third church, these deeds had become accepted doctrine, which the Lord also hated. For whatever reason the Lord chose not to let history record the precise teachings of the Nicolaitanes. He does, however, want us to understand just what this bunch of hooligans is about and therefore He has given us one infallible piece of evidence.

There are three named heresies among the seven churches — the Nicolaitanes, Balaam, and the woman Jezebel. None of these are identified under these names in church history, despite the frantic efforts of historians to tell us that Nicholas and Jezebel were real persons — even going so far as to blacken the good name of Nicholas of Antioch (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5), as the guilty party. It is said by some that Nicholas founded a movement of apostates who had pagan feasts and were most immoral in their behavior. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it first. Naturally this spawned the most bizarre and wanton orgies and other fleshly endeavors as a necessary step on the road to perfection. Thus the historians applied to them the two Old Testament names that symbolized such extravagances: Balaam and Jezebel. Since Balaam corrupted the people of Israel and thus conquered them, it was said that Nicholas did likewise. This group was supposedly forced out of Ephesus and found a place of establishment in Pergamos. But the problem about this belief is that it is not true. There is absolutely no history for it. It is at best tradition, but I view it as mere myth and folklore — a fairy tale!

The names are symbolic of the heresies they represent. When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. What was this thing God hated but man loved and would not stop doing? What are these Nicolaitanes? We’ll understand it when we know what the name means! The word comes from two Greek words: nikao, which means "to rule over or to conquer," and laos, which means "the laity or the people." Put these definitions together and you get a domineering ruling class within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!

In the religious world there are those who are called "clergy" and those who are called "laity." Where do you suppose these titles came from? "Laity, lay person, and layman" are all derivatives from the Greek word laos mentioned above! This is a title that has come to us from religious Babylon! The clergy are called the "reverends," "doctors," "pastors," "teachers," "evangelists," "overseers," "bishops," "ministers," "priests," "superintendents," "leaders," etc. These are often termed "men of the cloth" — men who wear special attire as a matter of identification as "clergy." These are the people who have the power, authority, and lordship! The rest of us poor folks are just "laity."

What were the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes? They were exalting the "clergy" over the "laity"! The clergy class were dominating the laity, the people. The clergy were exalted whereas the laity were abased. The clergy became the authority, they became the fountain of all truth, they had the last word, and the laity were the "dumb sheep" that were instructed to follow and do what they were told. I once read that the saddest thing that happened to the church was when it stopped being a family and became an audience. Most people have missed the point completely; they conceive of the church as a drama wherein they are merely spectators. In this drama the minister is the principle actor, God is his prompter whispering His lines in his ear — should he chance to forget them — and the congregation are the critics who pass their judgment upon the performance when all has been said and done. This can be perceived by the comments of many people to the minister (actor) who has now made his way to the front door to receive the acclamation of the spectators. "Good job, preacher! You really did a good job today. You really let ‘em have it!" Or the comment, "The choir was really beautiful today." The whole idea expressed seems to be that it was a drama; it was a performance, a show, and you express your acceptance and your approval. You are the critic and it is up to you to pass your judgment.

We have here a "caste system" of "clergy" and "laity" which has been clearly and soundly repudiated by the firstborn Son of God! The firstborn Son, the pattern Son, the proto-type of what the life of sonship is all about, said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men hold them in subjection; but it must not be so among you. On the contrary, whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave; and whosoever may desire to take rank among you, let him be your servant: just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve. You are not to be called teacher, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. And you must not be called leaders, for you have one Leader, the Christ. He who is greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whosoever humbles himself shall be raised to honor" (Mat. 20:25-27; 23:8-12, Amplified & Ferrar Fenton). Men love to rule, even though God has called all of us to serve one another. How many churches or groups can we point out today who observe these words of the Lord Jesus? THINK ABOUT IT!
God’s people, since the days of king Saul, have been accustomed to appointing kings, priests, prophets, bishops, pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, overseers, leaders, and rulers of all kinds, to hear the word of the Lord for them, and rule over them by it, instead of hearing and knowing the Lord for themselves. But that old order has since passed away! It has not passed away for those who remain in religious Babylon, but God has established a new and spiritual order for His elect who are in Christ. This new order is not really new, for it is the very same order the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples! It is the order of sonship! And this new order of the spirit of sonship replaces all those substitutes, whether they be bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or anything else. Oh, yes, there are spiritual ministries in the body of Christ! But these spiritual ministries are servants, not leaders or rulers. In this new kingdom day God is making His elect to be sons of the Father with the spiritual ability to HEAR all the Lord would tell us and to KNOW Him by personal experience of His fullness. No longer do His called and chosen ones submit to the lordship of others who can hear and act "for" them, but as brethren in the body of Christ they share the same mind, nature, life, and power and so admonish, encourage, confirm, and bless one another as each joint supplies. ONLY THE HEAD RULES! There is one Head and one Leader, even Christ, who dwells within. These are such simple principles, and so divine, that one would think all men could understand, but the carnal mind never understands!

The word of the Lord is coming forth today! This fresh, new word is not given only to designated apostles, prophets, pastors, or teachers. It is better, rather, to avoid those who claim such titles and offices and turn your spiritual ears to the heavens of God’s Spirit, and hear for yourself what your Father has to say. The word that you receive will then be confirmed by all who are walking in the Spirit and hearing from the Father. How beautiful this is! What safety there is in this order of the Spirit! Father’s anointed word of life, wisdom, power, and authority is radiating out of the Spirit of the Son within us. Let us HEAR HIM and then obediently DO all He tells us to do! Christ alone is the true Head, Lord, and King of all His elect and chosen ones. His faithful and obedient elect are hearing His pure word from His pure mind. And they are fulfilling His word, walking out His righteousness and will out of His holy nature and power. They are worshipping Him in spirit and in truth, as our Lord told us to do, and not after the traditions of the church systems. By these necessary principles of consecration and yieldedness unto the Lord, those called to sonship are becoming a holy, separated people unto the Lord, prepared to serve His holy kingdom purposes in all the earth.
I do not seek to revile, but rather to speak the truth in love as I warn all who seek after life, immortality, and sonship to God to flee from the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolaitanes as you would flee from a poisonous snake or a lion in the jungle. Let us reverently consider together just how this heresy entered in among the Lord’s people. What a flood of light fell upon the world in the ministry of Jesus and His apostles! Then following His ascension, by the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of Christ, the Lord came again in mighty Spirit power to indwell His people. The church was birthed, and gathered from Jew and Gentile alike, a vast multitude into its bosom. The shadows of the law were replaced by the glorious and eternal reality of a living, indwelling Christ. In those few holy years Christ Himself within was the only Head of the church and unity and harmony flowed like a river and the body of Christ was one. There was no government but the government of the Spirit. Love and wisdom shone like the sun from the mind of God. When the human body knows no government but the government of its head, all is order and unity, and there is health and power. So also it was with the body of Christ!
And what glorious days those were! One only has to read the book of Acts to see how much God blessed His people in those days. Mighty signs and wonders were performed as God confirmed His word with signs following. The word of God, anointed by the Holy Spirit, swept the world like a prairie fire. It encircled the mountains and crossed the oceans. It made kings to tremble and tyrants to fear. It was said of those early Christians that they turned the world upside down! So powerful was their message and spirit. In spite of persecution it grew and multiplied, for God dwelt mightily in the midst of His people. The knowledge of the glory of the Lord covered the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Even before the apostles had departed their earthly life, a spirit and system had set in among the saints of the Lord and many people were wearing the Babylonish garment. They were instituting rules and regulations, laying down laws, formulating creeds, observing days, establishing sacraments and ordinances, elevating human government, becoming disciples of Paul, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of many others. The babble had begun and the mysterious man of sin was raising his ugly head. Before too many years had passed men began to set themselves up as "bishops" and "lords" over God’s heritage in place of the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
While I concur that the "laity" needs to act like sons and daughters of the Living God, rather than spectators in a performance that they critique, the initial premise is to be rejected. It risks bashing leadership, or thwarting it, and that is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

The probable reason there is little historical evidence is because the sect was small and not too much worth writing about, unless of course you were John, and living and ministering to Asia Minor, where the problem actually existed. But there was in fact a historical basis confirming it going as far back as Clement of Alexandia. As far as historical sources go, that's not too shabby. That's mid second century. Early enough for direct knowledge and given by perhaps the most erudite individual known to Christianity at that time.

Now as for ruining the reputation of Nicholas of Antioch. That's not how Eusebius explained it. The story is more to the effect that a man finds that his wife is very beautiful and gives him lustful thoughts. In his struggle for lust he ultimately conquers his selfish feelings, giving her up to the apostles, which means that he is delivered from his lust - a statement that would be entirely in keeping with the teaching of Clement of Alexandria on temperance in marriage. Any fair assessment of history would conclude that this statement then got misconstrued as meaning that the apostles were having sport with her, which was preposterous. Apparently the group used it (the devolved report of the saying, not the actual things said or done, which were all quite innocent) as an example of Christian licentiousness.

We then get from that people claiming the Christians were engaging in "love fests" (a reference to the agape feasts) and rejecting the law, even sinning deliberately that grace should abound all the more, as in ...
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, ... why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.
(Romans 3:5-8)
It was all malicious slander, but if there was a small group of "Christians" using their liberty as an excuse for licentious behavior, then so much the more should they have been hated by someone like John and the Lord, seeing that the Roman government would certainly take up on such views and use it as a reason to persecute orthodox Christians, which is exactly what John was warning the Churches in Asia Minor about - that Dioclecian Caesar was going to be as bad as Nero had been. And there was, apparently, some such group, and they went by the name "Nicolatians," which is the rest of the story, as given by Clement of Alexandria.

You cannot deny the historical side of this just because there is a gap of a hundred years between Clement and John or Paul. Here we are dealing with a letter written to seven specific churches in Asia Minor. What can you tell me about each of those churches from a historical perspective? Who were the members there? Does the fact that we don't have many records tell you that there was no such church? Or should we understand those churches to all have Greek meaning or metaphorical meaning, whatever you choose to make it that fits your preconceived rejection of ecclesial authority?

Here is the problem with the Greek roots theory. Not only does it dismiss perfectly healthy historical data, but it uses roots without grammar, concluding whatever it wants, thus becoming meaningless to all. For it is just as easily construed as God hates it when the laity rule, thus disrespecting their rulers, as it does that God hates it when there are rulers over the laity, because the Greek roots do not supply a subject and object. There is no hint of inflection in the word John gives, other than what it actually is - a group of people he is referring to.

Let us again visit the Greek in this verse: ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις , ὅτι μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν ἃ κἂγω μισῶ . God hates the works of the Nicolatians. The inflection "wv" is in relation here to the works, not to either Niko or Laos. But if we were to look to the word for an object it would not be Niko, but Laos, as the wn portion belongs to the laos. That is to say that the rulership, if we were to really look at the roots of this word as being the meaning intended, belongs to the laity, not that the rulership is over the laity. If it was over the laity, rather than belonging to the laity then it would be Νικολαϊτην with an heta rather than the omega.

This brings up an interesting thought and a deep irony. The same people trying to look at the Greek roots of this word Νικολαϊτῶν also believe strongly in rejecting ecclesial authority. They want and believe in equal authority for all Christians. This despite the clear message of Paul and the writer of Hebrews:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε , αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν

"Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed." (Titus 3:1)
I've underlined the word ἡγουμένοις here because some translations have it as "leaders" and others have it as "rulers." This word can also be rendered as "princes" or "governors." The writer to the Hebrews points specifically to the leadership over the soul, which indicates a pastoral position. No matter how it is rendered, there is one in authority over others, who are being exhorted to be subject to those authorities.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the New Testament teaches that there should be no authority in the church. Rather, Christ appointed first apostles, then prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:10-12).

And here is more irony. John also mentions Jezebel. We often hear of a Jezebel spirit being in people. Usually this in reference to wives who refuse to submit to their husbands. What is this spirit? It is a rejection of God given authority - a spirit of rebellion. Jezebel rejected the authority of the Kingdom as He set it up - in Jerusalem under David. She allowed and supported contrary religion to what God had set up. The split between the North and South Kingdom was a Protestant movement that rejected the authority of King David and his dynasty, splitting the kingdom in half, rejecting unity.

We do not have a record of who that Jezebel may have been that John was referring to. But which way are we going to have it? If we say that Nicolatianism is a non-God given authority over a laity that was meant not to have any authority over it except Christ, then how can we also have a problem with a Jezebel spirit, which assumes there is such a thing as a God-given authority that can be rejected to begin with?

To answer, one may say that the "Jezebel" spirit is limited to the rejection of Christ and does not ever pertain to the rejection of any authority God has given to any other man because no such authority exists.

Really? Well to maintain such a position one must believe that hubands have no spiritual authority over their wives. Wives are not to submit to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22, 24; Collassians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).

Similarly, they must also believe that overseership is not really overseership. It is just seership. We are all shepherds who oversee the church. And we can ignore what Paul said to the Corinthians.
"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
"(1 Corinthians 12:28-29)
Since we are interested in Greek, the word "overseer" is the best translation for the word episcopos. Epi means "over." Scopos" as in telescope, means "see." Paul was rather explicit in his epistles to Timothy and Titus that there was such a position as "overseer" in the church and marked out some of the qualities of leadership that were required before they should be appointed as such, an appointment that came with an anointing, which is to say that it was a God-given appointment.

See 1 Timothy 2:1-2; Titus 1:7. The word "overseer" is sometimes translates as "bishop." But it is always the Greek word episcopos. This word was used not only of the overseers ordained by the apostles for such work, but also of the apostles themselves, as in Acts 1:20. The word "pastor" (ποιμήν) is only found in Ephesians 4:11, but as it refers to shepherding, or tending, it is thought to be the same as overseeing. The LXX uses this word as it has the Psalmist describing David "tending" his flock in the innocence of his heart, guiding them with skillful hands (Psalm 78:72). Along these lines we see references also to the Good Shepherd, Christ, who is the fulfillment of this type and shadow (John 10:11, 14; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4).

But the fact that Christ is the head and shepherd of us all makes Him chief shepherd. It does not take away from His shared authority as if He set no shepherds up in the church. Clearly He did. That is what Paul was speaking to Timothy and Titus about.

As I said in previous posts in this thread, if we want to talk about abuse in the church, and abuse of authority, that is one thing. And if you wish to apply this to the term Nicolatians in doing so, go ahead. But that is eisegesis. It is not what the text was about. It doesn't work that way when you look at the Greek. It doesn't work that way when you look at the historical record. And the context is a complaint not of rulership over the laity, or rulership by the laity, but of the works of whoever the Nicolatians were - their works. What were their works? Well, they were ungodly. That much we can be sure of. Abuse of authority is certainly an ungodly work. But so is licentiousness. And so is rejection of authority.

Pick the evil you wish to target. The great city of Ephesus was destroyed and has never been larger than a small village to this day. It's churches were rebuilt as monuments, rather than fruitful vinyards in the love of God. They held what was called the "robbers council" there in the fifth century, before it was destroyed by the Turks. And there was a St. Mark of Ephesus who unsuccessfully attempted to unify a divided church at the council of Florence, some 900 years later, which is about the best Ephesus has had to offer since. John's message was a message to the Ephesians, in particular - the church over which John was said to be overseer, and where his tomb is now found. Maybe if we rediscovered also that first love, that love that John was talking about, we could see it rise up again as something more than a memorial.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
S

Spartan Warrior

Guest
]It is not the historical side of a view that matters when it comes to truth in God's Word, it is the hidden spiritual side that is so relevant. The Catholic Church has its history and so do all religions. Leadership in religion is far too bias and opinionated and too full of it self to look honesty and openly at God's Word; if this was not true then there would not be 10,000 religions asserting themselves over God's people. God knows what he is a doing, religion has no clue and are missing the mark.

The Book of revelation is the most spiritual Book in the whole Bible and is not literal.

While I concur that the "laity" needs to act like sons and daughters of the Living God, rather than spectators in a performance that they critique, the initial premise is to be rejected. It risks bashing leadership, or thwarting it, and that is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

The probable reason there is little historical evidence is because the sect was small and not too much worth writing about, unless of course you were John, and living and ministering to Asia Minor, where the problem actually existed. But there was in fact a historical basis confirming it going as far back as Clement of Alexandia. As far as historical sources go, that's not too shabby. That's mid second century. Early enough for direct knowledge and given by perhaps the most erudite individual known to Christianity at that time.

Now as for ruining the reputation of Nicholas of Antioch. That's not how Eusebius explained it. The story is more to the effect that a man finds that his wife is very beautiful and gives him lustful thoughts. In his struggle for lust he ultimately conquers his selfish feelings, giving her up to the apostles, which means that he is delivered from his lust - a statement that would be entirely in keeping with the teaching of Clement of Alexandria on temperance in marriage. Any fair assessment of history would conclude that this statement then got misconstrued as meaning that the apostles were having sport with her, which was preposterous. Apparently the group used it (the devolved report of the saying, not the actual things said or done, which were all quite innocent) as an example of Christian licentiousness.

We then get from that people claiming the Christians were engaging in "love fests" (a reference to the agape feasts) and rejecting the law, even sinning deliberately that grace should abound all the more, as in ...
But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, ... why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.
(Romans 3:5-8)
It was all malicious slander, but if there was a small group of "Christians" using their liberty as an excuse for licentious behavior, then so much the more should they have been hated by someone like John and the Lord, seeing that the Roman government would certainly take up on such views and use it as a reason to persecute orthodox Christians, which is exactly what John was warning the Churches in Asia Minor about - that Dioclecian Caesar was going to be as bad as Nero had been. And there was, apparently, some such group, and they went by the name "Nicolatians," which is the rest of the story, as given by Clement of Alexandria.

You cannot deny the historical side of this just because there is a gap of a hundred years between Clement and John or Paul. Here we are dealing with a letter written to seven specific churches in Asia Minor. What can you tell me about each of those churches from a historical perspective? Who were the members there? Does the fact that we don't have many records tell you that there was no such church? Or should we understand those churches to all have Greek meaning or metaphorical meaning, whatever you choose to make it that fits your preconceived rejection of ecclesial authority?

Here is the problem with the Greek roots theory. Not only does it dismiss perfectly healthy historical data, but it uses roots without grammar, concluding whatever it wants, thus becoming meaningless to all. For it is just as easily construed as God hates it when the laity rule, thus disrespecting their rulers, as it does that God hates it when there are rulers over the laity, because the Greek roots do not supply a subject and object. There is no hint of inflection in the word John gives, other than what it actually is - a group of people he is referring to.

Let us again visit the Greek in this verse: ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἔχεις , ὅτι μισεῖς τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν ἃ κἂγω μισῶ . God hates the works of the Nicolatians. The inflection "wv" is in relation here to the works, not to either Niko or Laos. But if we were to look to the word for an object it would not be Niko, but Laos, as the wn portion belongs to the laos. That is to say that the rulership, if we were to really look at the roots of this word as being the meaning intended, belongs to the laity, not that the rulership is over the laity. If it was over the laity, rather than belonging to the laity then it would be Νικολαϊτην with an heta rather than the omega.

This brings up an interesting thought and a deep irony. The same people trying to look at the Greek roots of this word Νικολαϊτῶν also believe strongly in rejecting ecclesial authority. They want and believe in equal authority for all Christians. This despite the clear message of Paul and the writer of Hebrews:
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν καὶ ὑπείκετε , αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν

"Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed." (Titus 3:1)
I've underlined the word ἡγουμένοις here because some translations have it as "leaders" and others have it as "rulers." This word can also be rendered as "princes" or "governors." The writer to the Hebrews points specifically to the leadership over the soul, which indicates a pastoral position. No matter how it is rendered, there is one in authority over others, who are being exhorted to be subject to those authorities.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the New Testament teaches that there should be no authority in the church. Rather, Christ appointed first apostles, then prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:10-12).

And here is more irony. John also mentions Jezebel. We often hear of a Jezebel spirit being in people. Usually this in reference to wives who refuse to submit to their husbands. What is this spirit? It is a rejection of God given authority - a spirit of rebellion. Jezebel rejected the authority of the Kingdom as He set it up - in Jerusalem under David. She allowed and supported contrary religion to what God had set up. The split between the North and South Kingdom was a Protestant movement that rejected the authority of King David and his dynasty, splitting the kingdom in half, rejecting unity.

We do not have a record of who that Jezebel may have been that John was referring to. But which way are we going to have it? If we say that Nicolatianism is a non-God given authority over a laity that was meant not to have any authority over it except Christ, then how can we also have a problem with a Jezebel spirit, which assumes there is such a thing as a God-given authority that can be rejected to begin with?

To answer, one may say that the "Jezebel" spirit is limited to the rejection of Christ and does not ever pertain to the rejection of any authority God has given to any other man because no such authority exists.

Really? Well to maintain such a position one must believe that hubands have no spiritual authority over their wives. Wives are not to submit to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22, 24; Collassians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).

Similarly, they must also believe that overseership is not really overseership. It is just seership. We are all shepherds who oversee the church. And we can ignore what Paul said to the Corinthians.
"And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
"(1 Corinthians 12:28-29)
Since we are interested in Greek, the word "overseer" is the best translation for the word episcopos. Epi means "over." Scopos" as in telescope, means "see." Paul was rather explicit in his epistles to Timothy and Titus that there was such a position as "overseer" in the church and marked out some of the qualities of leadership that were required before they should be appointed as such, an appointment that came with an anointing, which is to say that it was a God-given appointment.

See 1 Timothy 2:1-2; Titus 1:7. The word "overseer" is sometimes translates as "bishop." But it is always the Greek word episcopos. This word was used not only of the overseers ordained by the apostles for such work, but also of the apostles themselves, as in Acts 1:20. The word "pastor" (ποιμήν) is only found in Ephesians 4:11, but as it refers to shepherding, or tending, it is thought to be the same as overseeing. The LXX uses this word as it has the Psalmist describing David "tending" his flock in the innocence of his heart, guiding them with skillful hands (Psalm 78:72). Along these lines we see references also to the Good Shepherd, Christ, who is the fulfillment of this type and shadow (John 10:11, 14; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25; 5:4).

But the fact that Christ is the head and shepherd of us all makes Him chief shepherd. It does not take away from His shared authority as if He set no shepherds up in the church. Clearly He did. That is what Paul was speaking to Timothy and Titus about.

As I said in previous posts in this thread, if we want to talk about abuse in the church, and abuse of authority, that is one thing. And if you wish to apply this to the term Nicolatians in doing so, go ahead. But that is eisegesis. It is not what the text was about. It doesn't work that way when you look at the Greek. It doesn't work that way when you look at the historical record. And the context is a complaint not of rulership over the laity, or rulership by the laity, but of the works of whoever the Nicolatians were - their works. What were their works? Well, they were ungodly. That much we can be sure of. Abuse of authority is certainly an ungodly work. But so is licentiousness. And so is rejection of authority.

Pick the evil you wish to target. The great city of Ephesus was destroyed and has never been larger than a small village to this day. It's churches were rebuilt as monuments, rather than fruitful vinyards in the love of God. They held what was called the "robbers council" there in the fifth century, before it was destroyed by the Turks. And there was a St. Mark of Ephesus who unsuccessfully attempted to unify a divided church at the council of Florence, some 900 years later, which is about the best Ephesus has had to offer since. John's message was a message to the Ephesians, in particular - the church over which John was said to be overseer, and where his tomb is now found. Maybe if we rediscovered also that first love, that love that John was talking about, we could see it rise up again as something more than a memorial.
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
]It is not the historical side of a view that matters when it comes to truth in God's Word, it is the hidden spiritual side that is so relevant. The Catholic Church has its history and so do all religions. Leadership in religion is far too bias and opinionated and too full of it self to look honesty and openly at God's Word; if this was not true then there would not be 10,000 religions asserting themselves over God's people. God knows what he is a doing, religion has no clue and are missing the mark.

The Book of revelation is the most spiritual Book in the whole Bible and is not literal.
You are correct. History doesn't matter, that is if it gives something other than what is found in the Bible. But when we are attempting to determine what is in the Bible, what it means, and we are given the opportunity to learn from the apostles directly, that is not simply history. It is revelation. It is what was revealed to the apostles.

Now according to the Stromata, Clement of Alexandria was a disciple of Tatian, of Theodosius and of Pantaenus, who each were discliples of John, Peter, James and Paul. It is a fairly direct connection to the apostles themselves. And it is given by one who was particularly well-read. That is, he was very well informed.

So if we are to ask how to interpret a passage in the book of Revelation and given an ambiguous Greek meaning, without a historical reference on the one hand, but are also given a historical reference, and Clement is the source on the other, we shouldn't be dismissing Clement. And we are certainly being intellecually dishonest if we claim there is no historical basis, or that we have smeared the good name of a deacon, Nicolas of Antioch.

Truth be told, that is just not what the evidence suggests. And truth be told, when you look through the eyes of prejudice and hatred, you will find what you want to see. If you hate clericalism, you will find that in the text, even if that is not what God intended.

Revelation was an apocalyptic style letter written to seven historical churches. It is now in our hands and we can view it both historically and allegorically. We can look at a possible future millennium. We can look at a possible future tribulation. We can fill in all sorts of apocalyptic blanks as we consider the possibilities and pray for answers. We can input our opinions about periods of church history and pretend that that is what the message is referring to. Of course, that puts us into the Philadelphian period, with the Laodician around the corner as we expect the antichrist to show up in that church Jesus spews out of his mouth just prior to the great tribulation.\

Charming, that the one uncriticized church winds up fitting our own denomination's appearance when we play that little dispensation game.

The problem is you don't learn anything that way. You start out with some opinions and knowledge, and then you try to fit that knowledge into the typology of the text. You're not letting the text speak to you. You are speaking to the text.

What about the Bible? It testifies to the fact that there is leadership. Is it the fault of leadership that there are 10,000 denominations? Yes. But the problem is not that they don't believe in the Bible. They all do. The problem is that they are without unity. And the Bible alone doesn't give it to them.

What has caused the schizmatic spirit in the church is the fact that people have no sense of the hearts of the fathers. The early church fathers, who were closest to the apostles, interpreted the sayings of the apostles and were not divided. They were the ones who received the word of God gladly and lived by it.

These were the first born. They were humble and gave their lives for Christ. They gave all they had - their wealth, 100% of it, their minds, souls, strength, and even their blood. Are we doing that today? Hardly.

Now if we would truly be Sons of the Living God we would begin to live that way, like newborn babes seeking after the pure milk of the Word. And if we did so we would become tomorrow's leaders. That's how leaders are born. Jesus had compassion and was filled with tears because He realized that they were sheep without a Shepherd. Who will shepherd them? Will you?

But the issue of the Nicolatians is not about leadership. That is just a twisted version of the Greek, which could just as easily be construed as rulership by, rather than of the laity. The issue of the Nicolatians was the fact that the church was licentious. And how contrary that is to what Nicolas actually did - which was to offer his heart to God fully, even every selfish desire in his relationship with his wife. How many of us are doing that today? How many of us are loving our wives as Christ loved the church?

Is that not what true leadership is anyway? Why should the left hand know what the right hand is doing? Simply lead in your home. Submit yourselves to one another in love, as to Christ. The Nicolatians got the Gospel message backwards. And so do those who say that there should be no leadership in the church. How will there ever be unity in the church again if there is no selfless leadership? And how will there be selfless leadership if all leadership is rejected because leadershiplessness becomes doctrine?

It is as heinous a doctrine as the doctrine of licentiousness that the actual Nicolatianism was because it directly thwarts the Gospel. Understand that I do not mean that the laity are not to rise up and lead by good example. I am speaking of the rejection of God given offices of leadership. I am speaking of the office of bishops that belong to the presbyters of the church that the apostles and their successors anointed. You may find that they have fallen. The Bible says that they are in need of restoration. But that does not mean that they are not anointed.

David knew not to come against Saul because he knew that even though Saul was apostate, he was anointed as king. When you come against the bishops that were anointed by the apostles and their successors you are coming against an office that God Himself ordained through the laying on of hands.

Please do not misconstrue what I am saying. I am not speaking of the papacy. That is a perversion that began in the seventh and eighth century. I am talking about the episcopal order the Bible demonstrates, and history confirms. If we would go back to the early fathers and read the Bible through their eyes, we could find a path to unity. There wouldn't be 10,000 interpretations. But those who choose not to consider the fathers. Those will remain divided. It can't be any other way. They are like sheep without a shepherd. They will say "Bible alone" all day long and continue to disagree with one another. Their direct relationship with Jesus is fine, but their Bible alone theory doesn't work because God gave apostles and prophets and teachers and evangelists and administrations, which would include pastors and more, even healing offices of wonderworkers. Based on the Scriptures, these are real offices.

I believe it. Why not work together to restore these offices to what they are meant to be rather than reject them because there are those who Lord their authority over others? Does not the Bible predict the restoration of all things? (Malachi 4:5-6). This takes place BEFORE the Lord returns and is only partially fulfilled in John the Baptist. Elijah comes before both advents of Christ because both are the day of the Lord. That is why Christ said Elijah had already come but also spoke in the future tense:

Ἠλίας μὲν ἔρχεται καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει πάντα·

Elijah comes and will restore all things. (Matthew 17:11)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
despite the frantic efforts of historians to tell us that Nicholas and Jezebel were real persons — even going so far as to blacken the good name of Nicholas of Antioch (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5), as the guilty party. It is said by some that Nicholas founded a movement of apostates who had pagan feasts and were most immoral in their behavior. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it first. Naturally this spawned the most bizarre and wanton orgies and other fleshly endeavors as a necessary step on the road to perfection.

I have already pointed out that it is just as easy, in fact easier, to interpret the name Nicolaus as "The People Rule" as it is to interpret it as "Rulership over the People." Clearly prejudice is provoking the anticlerical theory here. And elsehwere in this thread somebody also made Ignatius of Antioch guilty by association, since Nicolaus was also from Antioch. That's like calling the apostles Pharisees since they were all from Israel and the Pharisees were from Israel too. Or perhaps all of the apostles were betrayers of Christ since Judas also was an apostle, and he betrayed Christ.

Can we put the polemics aside and please seek truth here? Just for the sake of accuracy, let's look at these so called "frantic efforts" of the historians without reference to prejudice.

Besides Eusebius, there are three or four significnat earlier historical sources referring to the Nicolatians, none of them frantic. The earliest is Clement of Alexandria. Writing in his Stromata Book III, Ch. 4 paragraphs 1-2. (See Clement_Stromata_Book3_English for source and context). Eusebius simply quotes from Clement. Here is what Clement originally said:
Of the heretics we mentioned Marcion of Pontus as forbidding the use of this world's goods on the ground of opposition to the Creator. The Creator himself is thus the reason for continence, if this can be called continence; for this giant o thinks he can resist God is not continent by an act of free choice, in that he attacks the creation and the process by which n is formed. If they quote the Lord's words to Philip, "Let dead bury their dead, but do thou follow me," they ought to consider that Philip's flesh is also formed in the same way; body is not a polluted corpse. How then could he have a body of flesh which is not a corpse? Because he rose from the tomb when the Lord killed his passions, and he began to live unto Christ. We also mentioned the blasphemous immorality of Carpocrates. But when we spoke about the saying of Nicolaus we omitted to say this. Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must overcome the flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity.
I am informed, however, that Nicolaus never had relations with any woman other than the wife he married, and that of his children his daughters remained virgins to their old age, and his son remained uncorrupted. In view of this it was an act of suppression of passion when he brought before the apostles the wife on whose account he was jealous. He taught what it meant to "overcome the flesh" by restraining the distracting passions. For, as the Lord commanded, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and God. It is said that Matthias also taught that one should fight the flesh and overcome it, never allowing it to give way to licentious pleasure, so that the soul might grow by faith and knowledge.
Just a word on Clement. He was a remarkable historian, as can be clearly seen by anyone who reads the first book of the same work, where he compares the dates of Moses, the Kings and the prophets with all of the Greek philosophers, proving that Plato was familiar with the Hebrew writings and that what was right in philosophy borrowed from the religion of the Hebrews. Clement wrote near the end of the second century and was contemporary with Ireneus. Eusebius quotes him because of his authority. And in this case we posess the original. You can see from the context that there is nothing "frantic" going on. Clement had no case to prove to anyone. The Stromota (Miscellanies) are what the name suggests, meandering thoughts. They do have a logical order, building on eachother, but you have to read it in order to comprehend the logic. He does not attempt to argue a case against anyone. He simply spells out what he knows, which in his first book he explains, is as best as he can remember it, and not with the same potency as those he learned it from - namely the direct students of the apostles, most especially Pantaenus.

From there we can move over to Hipplytus in Rome, far from Alexandria, some twenty years later. And what we find is some concurrent thought. Hippolytus offers no kind words concerning Nicolaus, as Clement does, but simply provides a summary. This is the opposite of what usually happens with urban legends. Generally they grow and become more elaborate rather than less. Consider, for instance, the legends concerning the life and martyrdom of Peter, which started with the possibly false assertion by Hegesippus that he was in Rome at all, and grew into what became the Clementine Romances. Urban legends grow. They don't shrink.

What we have from Hippolytus is found in Philosphoumena 7:24 as follows:
There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.
Again, what we have here is certainly no "frantic effort". It is simply an opinion, possibly taken from Ireneus, his mentor, regarding the same, but adding here that Nicolas was the leader of the sect, as an apostate, not merely a name that was used by a sect that borrowed on his authority and the situation already described by Clement.

We can see that the sect was gnostic. Now Nicolaus, as an apostle directly acquainted with Jesus, and one of the seven deacons, known to be wise in the Spirit of God, would hardly have been a gnostic. So Hippolytus was probably in error on this, but Clement supplies the proper explanation for the difference. And what we thus have is opinions from two parts of the globe working concurrently to confirm the oral tradition written down first by Clement, which was first mentioned by Ireneus (see Ireneus Against Heresies I:26:3 and again III:11:1).

Now what Hippolytus said was the same as Ireneus. And Ireneus seems to contradict himself, first suggesting that Nicolaus was the leader of the sect in Book 1 and then dwelling more on the gnostics who took his name in Book 3. This would explain why Hippolytus would blame Nicolaus directly. In Book 3 we see the problem is Christological, Ireneus specifically addressing the nature of the heresy not as licentiousness but as bad theology. This would be consistent with a morphing and historical sect or combination of sects all grasping at a significant name in search of authority. Thus the opinion of Clement that Nicolaus may have been quite innocent is not unlikely.

Now Hippolytus and Ireneus were no historians in comparison to Clement, though by comparison with any scholars of today they had the advantage of knowing their own world and speaking the ancient languages, and many other advantages. But among them Clement was certainly the most knowledgable.

In addition to these, Epiphanius is also known to have commented on the Nicolatians, as well as Theodoret. Neither of these is early enough to offer any contributions to the subject other than the fact that they were probably aware of Ireneus, Hippolytus, Eusebius and Clement.

Perhaps it does not seem that these three major sources, not contradicting eachother, or two, if you view Hippolytus simply as a student of Ireneus, is not a substantive historical authority. But these were not minor church fathers. And in the anteNicene period there is less volume that has survived compared to later periods in church history, yet these were close enough to the apostles, and without the political reasons that may have caused later historians to revise their rendition of church history.

That is to say, if there ever was an oral tradition that deserved to be considered plausible, this is one of them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

467AIR

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2010
633
23
✟895.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
James, I agree with the others here. The clergy do not have the ears to hear with. They try to gather their flock and control them to what they want them to believe.

So often God's people believe they have the truth and lock their mind set in some preconceived religious dogma and cannot hear anything but what they have been taught. I trust no religious clergy and if I did can you please tell me which one of the thousands of religious opinions out there has the truth?

NONE.

It is obvious by your post your quest for truth is a religious quest and not a spiritual one.
 
Upvote 0

jamescarvin

dummie
Feb 26, 2008
252
38
USA
Visit site
✟8,088.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I certainly agree with you that the clergy do try to control their flocks so that they are in agreement with them about what they want them to believe. After all, that is their job. And it is what Paul and other apostles exhorted the faithful to continue doing so that the Gospel wouldn't be changed.

We all do well to trust no one but Jesus for opinion. The problem is where to find the real Jesus. And you do well to point out that there are tens of thousands of opinions and to ask how one is able to discern which one is true.

The difference between us is that we don't answer that question the same way. My approach is to study the Scriptures and compare them with the early writings of the church to see where any changes may have occurred, and to think very carefully and prayerfully about such changes. No problem. I have a life time to consider it. But I do consider it quite actively, spending much time reading both the Bible and the early church fathers - and when I say "early" I am referring to the anteNicene fathers - those who wrote prior to the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

It is important to me to take this approach because of the possibility that what is considered "orthodox" is not really truth. The way to check that is not through study of the later fathers, but the earlier, and the Scriptures themselves. The later fathers may offer some insight into the earlier fathers. So they may be of some use. But the object is to arrive at the one true faith Jesus preached.

Those who use the Bible alone have tens of thousands of opinions. And being without guidance from pastors just magnifies that problem. The solution is clearly not to do without guidance from those who have more education than we do ourselves. Education is not an end-all. But only fools reject understanding. And there will be no path to unity without it.

I don't have to believe the clergy when they speak to me. I can check their facts and statements. As a member of the church, an heir of all the glory of God, I know that God can use me to correct bishops and priests if they are wrong. However, there is no reason to assume that what they say is wrong, or to distrust or dishonor those who are placed in authority over the church. Not only does the Bible command us to honor those who are in authority but it also warns against creating divisions. John described those who departed from him as antichrists and liars and warned his "little children" not to fall into their same error.

What gave John his authority was his proximity to Jesus. What he had seen with his eyes and beheld and touched with his hands, that is what he proclaimed. So it doesn't surprise me that there are many opinions. What surprises me is that there are so many who fail to see that the obvious way to discover the real truth is to examine the life and words of Christ through those who were the closest to him. And since these writings are not too plentiful, wherever there are still questions, to examine what writings remain from those who knew those closest to Jesus. That would be the early church fathers.

With respect to spirtuality versus religion. Education requires effort. Similar to the reason that some demons were not cast out without much fasting and prayer, some wisdom is not obtained without much diligence in study and hardship in life. Fasting and prayer also is not uncalled for.

I pointed out that the Greek roots of the term Nicolaown could just as easily mean that God hated the works of the laity being victorious over the clergy (ie. rebellion against authority) as it does domination by authority over the flocks.

Being ambiguous in its roots leaves us to examine what else we know. So I pointed out that the person Nicolas was thought to be an apostle, who said something about his wife that was misconstrued, and which misunderstanding became the basis for a heretical sect, as explained by Clement of Alexandria. It is not religion but history that shows this.-

As I see it, there are two other things to discuss before this forum is exhausted. First, we haven't fully explored all the Scripture texts that shed light on what Nicolatianism is. Second, we haven't discussed the difference between spirituality and religion.

The word "religion" is a Latin term. It is not found in the Bible, though some translations of James say "true religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit the orphans and the widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world." However, the Greek behind that text suggests something more like piety than religion. It refers, in other words, to spirituality. The Latin term "Religion" actually means imprisonment.

It is telling that this word then became applied to the Roman Catholic Church, which did in fact turn spirituality into a form of captivity through its system of merits, indulgences, and general abduction of the truth as it fell into apostasy. It is from the history of the Roman Catholic Church that in the West a very strong anticlerical sentiment arose - rightfully so. It stemmed from abuse and error. And my own Orthodox Church is not free from guilt with respect to abuse in certain cases.

Now it is the opinion of the Orthodox that authority was given by Jesus to the apostles, which in turn was given to the bishops to preach the Gospel and to tend Christ's flock. As I see it, this command is clear in the Bible, though various Protestant sects and individuals disagree. And what Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not agree on is the authority that the Roman Church had over other churches. The doctrine of the papacy was a later development by the Latins, who also introduced this term "religion."

I am not a very good Orthodox Christian. I do believe in God's power in prayer. So when Orthodox priests and bishops are ordained I do believe that God is doing something special, imbuing His Spirit in them and ordaining their office. But I do not see that as giving them infallibility. Neither do they teach infallibility, but for some reason they consider their church to be without error, hence the name "Orthodox", which is not something I ever believed. At some point early in history, one of the first mistakes in fact, that I sense they made was to equate the gates of hell not prevailing over the church as meaning that they could not fall into error.

Some early fathers, in fact, interpreted this statement that way. And I think I can understand why. In short, in the context of those days those who rejected the teaching of the apostles and those who were in error were the same group. Had the Nicolatians, for instance, prevailed, then it could have properly been said that the gates of hell had prevailed over the church. They didn't. And so the promise of Christ could be counted.

Error and licentiousness at that time went hand in hand. This was the case also when the gnostic heresies sprang up, though some of these were ascetic and demanding, rather than promoting fornication and other sin. But their error, as well, did cause moral failure. Whether the problem was judaizing, which rejects the freedom of the Spirit and grace, or the rejection of the material, which brings about a rejection of the flesh, the result is frustration and hatred of what is good, which creates a very deep spiritual problem for those who espouse such ideas and lack a good guide to steer them out of it. It could then be said in all of those cases that since these sects did not prevail, that also the gates of hell had not prevailed over the church. In other words, satan did not get his way.

But I think Jesus meant much more as he spoke to Peter and His apostles. He neither meant that there would be no battle, nor did He refer to an institution that was to be associated with one communion over another in an age where there would be schizm and mutual anathema, or denominational institutions, nor independent Bible believers in grass roots disorganization referred to collectively. Rather, He was referring to what Paul made clear, to the remnant that was born not of works, but of faith, heirs according to promise - a thing that does not define any of these groups, but those who were foreknown and predestined. Against these, the gates of hell would never prevail.

In a culture where there were no independent Bible believers, (since there were no Bibles) and those who were rejecting the ordained bishops were starting up schizmatic groups where satanic lies and carnality were the fruit it made sense to interpret this passage as these early fathers did. They were not declaring their own authority. They were boasting in the Lord's promise to prevail over evil. But afterwards, taking up on their words, those who did declare and use and abuse authority, attempted to control the Lord, sticking God into the box of the church as they had conceived it. And even if the idea of Nico-laos does not actually refer to the problem of dominating and abusive authority, that problem did, in fact, become very real.

In its worst form this led to what I have many times referred to as ecclesiolatry. It is a notion of "the church" that restricts what church is to the visible organization of ordained and baptized individuals within a specific communion. The Orthodox Christian Church is not ecclesiolatrous by definition. But when people in it believe that the Holy Spirit can have no other place on earth, it is at that point that God gets stuffed into the imaginary line of their imagination. On the one hand ecclesiolatry places judgment. On the other hand it limits God and the Church. Most Orthodox reject judgement, leaving it to God. But they still view the Holy Spirit as belonging only to the PanOrthodox Church, much in the way that Roman Catholics view the Holy Spirit as belonging only to those churches in communion with the church of Rome - actually excluding the Orthodox and Nestorian churches.

I believe that these two very different identifications of what constitutes the visible church can be directly traced to the misunderstanding of the early fathers with respect to what they said about the gates of hell not prevailing over the church, and to what the idea that there was "no salvation outside the church" actually meant. I will not have time in a single post to cover that. And it may belong in a different thread anyway. I bring it up here to point out that what interests me is one thing - the truth. And I believe that in discovering it, unity would follow. To arrive at this is to discover the hearts of the fathers, rather than just using their words, or attempting to view the church from our contemproary prejudice.

It is, in fact, our contemporary prejudice that is holding us captive to religion over spirituality, whether we are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox, and this does not exclude independents, Evangelicals, and NonDenominationals, all of whom share specific preconceived ideas as they read the Bible, and all of whom contribute to the multilication of opinions, rather than to the unity of the church in that single truth, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I said also that there was more to discuss about the Nicolatians. John associates them first with the church of Ephesus and then with the church of Smyrna. I think he was writing around 90 A.D., which shows how quickly untruth can spread and turn into a moral dilemma. He wasn't even dead yet before this huge cult had already developed. But in reviewing what he said to the seven churches it is clear that he points in three directions - past, present and future. And although he speaks of what things "must soon take place" much of what he says to these seven lampstands pertains to the final judgement, so to suggest that the reference is only to the historical churches in Asia, is to ignore that these churches also serve as types and shadows of things to come in ages near and far, including the last times.

These seven churches then describe things common to all churches in various places in our present age, which in relation to John was the "near" future that would "soon" come to pass, if not to the churches themselves. A close look at the text will show that fornication and adultery were of concern to John, as well as lying and in some of the churches whether one was a true Jew. Space won't allow me to go into detail at this point. But among those criticized are those who claimed to be apostles, but who under examination proved not to be such. The Ephesians were praised for their discernment regarding this, as well as for their mutual hatred for the works of the Nicolatians. And finally, John says that "he who overcomes" will receive a blessing.

Here the Greek actually does have some significance to our discussion because the term "overcome" is actually nicos. But what is to be overcome is the temptation to think certain people were apostles when they were not, and the licentiousness of fornication, which John specifically mentions both here and with respect later to the woman Jezebel.

What history shows is that there was a very great struggle with gnosticism attempting to gain hold in the church, as well as certain Greek ideas that had contempt for creation, thinking that only what was immaterial and intelectual could be good. The body could thus not be raised and inherit the kingdom. And extreme forms of asceticism were practiced. Marrying and raising children were also rejected by some of these groups. And then there were the Nicolatians, who were apparently having orgies in the name of Christian love, and doing so supposedly with the direct connection to Jesus that was according to the recognized apostle - Nicolas. But the Ephesians discerned that these were not following after the apostolic teaching of Nicolas. And they rejected the supposed right and command to fornicate, turning the agape feast into a very different kind of love feast. John praised them for discerning that. But he also admonished them for losing their original zeal.

The followers of Nicolas were thus claiming to be apostolic because Nicolas was an apostle and they were taking up on what they claimed was his teaching. But John and the Ephesians, who knew their history, having proximity and discernment, knew the one true faith of Jesus Christ that was truly apostolic, and this was nothing like what they were saying, and worse, what they were doing. Read the second chapter of Revelation again and now that you know the whole background I think you will be able to see this.

At the heart of the issue then, was not religion and the claim for authority, but the concern for fidelity to Christ and the truth. The result was explicitly spiritual rather than religious. They were admonished by John to live a morally upright life. This message is good for all ages. And whoever overcomes to the end will receive the blessing and promises revealed through John.
 
Upvote 0

467AIR

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2010
633
23
✟895.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
jamescarvin

It is important to me to take this approach because of the possibility that what is considered "orthodox" is not really truth. The way to check that is not through study of the later fathers, but the earlier, and the Scriptures themselves. The later fathers may offer some insight into the earlier fathers. So they may be of some use. But the object is to arrive at the one true faith Jesus preached.

Those who use the Bible alone have tens of thousands of opinions. And being without guidance from pastors just magnifies that problem. The solution is clearly not to do without guidance from those who have more education than we do ourselves. Education is not an end-all. But only fools reject understanding. And there will be no path to unity without it.

I am far from orthodoxy Christian, in fact I am anti orthodox, and in fact I am anti religions and put no faith and any religious man made opinion.

What you are truly missing here is the spirit of God with in you; most pastors and Christians reject the leading of the spirit of truth with in them and blindly follow religion.

The one true faith Jesus preached is a spiritual faith and not a religious faith. Yes those who reject God’s spirit and follow men have more then ten thousand opinions, but those who learn to hear and see what and how God’s spirit leads us thought the spirit of truth with in us understand who are first love truly is.

Most pastors are part of the harlot system and simple do not have the right anointing be it the early church or now, they have a Saul anointing not a David’s anointing. Religious education is the wrong education, it is the spiritual education most lack, the knowledge of the scriptures is a spiritual understand which religious fools reject.

I love all of God’s Word; because it not only deals with my Heavenly Father; but it deals with His relationship to His Children; all of us. Every line, every word; there is something awesome and spiritual. Spiritual is so simple to me; it is just hearing God; I hear Him in the hiddeness of His Word.

Man and his religion are the harlot; the man lost and forgot his first love.
Rev 2 . 3
And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Our First love is our love for God; what did Adam lose when he left the garden; His relationship with God. Our first love as a believer is our love for God; we have gotten so religious we truly are missing what He is saying.


 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

467AIR

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2010
633
23
✟895.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I don't have to believe the clergy when they speak to me. I can check their facts and statements. As a member of the church, an heir of all the glory of God, I know that God can use me to correct bishops and priests if they are wrong. However, there is no reason to assume that what they say is wrong, or to distrust or dishonor those who are placed in authority over the church. Not only does the Bible command us to honor those who are in authority but it also warns against creating divisions. John described those who departed from him as antichrists and liars and warned his "little children" not to fall into their same error.

Again your faith is in a man made system and you do not trust the very Jesus you claim to believe in, the Spirit of God is within us, do you want to experience the God of the universe or just mimic the ten thousand religions you claim you distrust. If Jesus rebuked anyone in his day it was the religious Jews, today we do not have Pharisees or Sadducees we have ten thousand Christian-sees.

You speak of the glory of God but you are pointing in the wrong direction for His glory. Oh! God unveil our minds, unveil your word, unveil your great and eternal purpose, unveil yourself, unveil your glory, unveil the mysteries of your kingdom.

Take away the veil from our eyes. Let us consider for a moment the holy hope spoken of by the apostle Paul when he penned these soul enthralling words, "Even the mystery which hath BEEN HID FROM AGES AND FROM GENERATIONS, but now is manifest to His saints ... which is CHRIST IN YOU THE HOPE OF GLORY" (Col. 1:26-27).

The glory spoken of here is not heaven as has been generally supposed, but SONSHIP. That is the highest and most glorious glory that God has ever given or ever will give. "The glory which Thou gavest Me I have given them," said Jesus (Jn. 17:22).

"Whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the IMAGE OF HIS SON, that He might be the firstborn among MANY BRETHREN. Moreover, whom He did predestinate them He also called, and whom He called He also justified, and whom He justified He GLORIFIED" (Rom. 8:29-30).

The only hope of glory, is for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to dwell in you and control and order every step of your life. "As many as are led BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, THEY ARE THE SONS OF GOD." Christ in you is the hope of glory. Christ in me is the hope of glory. Not Christ in the sky or Christ in Jerusalem or Christ in some long dead religious leader from the first or second century. Sonship is not what I am, but WHAT HE IS. Sonship is not what Christ is APART FROM ME, but what HE IS IN ME. Sonship is Christ FORMED IN ME, REVEALED IN ME. Notice what Jesus told the religious Pharisees:
Luke 17:20-22

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks, and in the midst of the
seven golden candlesticks one like unto the Son of man" (Rev. 1:12-13). The candlestick realm is the church realm! THAT’S WHERE THE MESSAGE IS! The message is not out there, not from Christ in some far-off heaven somewhere, not from an angel from heaven, not from Christ outside of us. The message is within. The voice of the Son of God is the voice in the churches, within those in the churches who are walking in the Spirit and seeing and hearing by the Spirit. Weren’t nearly all of us in the churches when first we heard the Voice? It’s among us! It’s in our midst!
The kingdom of God is within you! The Spirit of the Son is within you! God dwelleth in you! The Holy Ghost is within you! The word of Christ dwelleth richly in you!
The anointing abideth within you! The voice of the Son of God is heard from within!
 
Upvote 0