Beware the Nicolaitans

AubreyM · Apr 11, 2021

HARK! said:
This is what Yahshua said to the ecclesia in Ephesus:

(CLV) Re 2:6
But this you have, that you are hating the acts of the Nicolaitans, which I, also, am hating.

Yahshua hates these acts! Strong words are these.

It's clear to me that I don't want to act like a Nicolaitan.

This is what Yahshua said to the ecclesia at Pergamum:

(CLV) Re 2:15
Thus you, also, have those holding the teaching of the Nicolaitans, likewise.

(CLV) Re 2:16
Repent then! Yet if not, I am coming to you swiftly and shall be battling with them with the blade of My mouth.

It's clear to me that I don't follow the teachings of the Nicolaitans.

Which leads me to the question, what are these teachings?

Let's take a look.

The doctrine of the Nicolaitans appears to have been a form of antinomianism, which makes the fatal mistake that man can freely partake in sin because the Law of God is no longer binding.

Today, the doctrine is now largely taught that the gospel of Christ has made God's law of no effect: that by "believing" we are released from the necessity of being doers of the Word. But this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which Christ so unsparingly condemned in the book of Revelation.

https://www.theopedia.com/nicolaitans

Believe these people were also mentioned about by some of the other writers of the letters in the bible.

Thank you for sharing some of this information; have heard of them from my teacher but could not remember the name of them and this was them, Hark!

HARK! · Apr 11, 2021

Simon D said:
As you are a moderator I can't put you on ignore so I am asking you not to quote me again because you are abusing your position as moderator by making fun out of me.

Do you agree to not invade my forum space anymore? Otherwise I leave.

The quote that you presented was in response to another member. I did not quote you in that response. If anyone here puts anyone on ignore, it simply means that the person who is ignoring, cant read the posts of the person being ignored. It doesn't work both ways.

I didn't make fun of anyone. I exposed the flaws of an idea. Let's not make this personal.

We are free to quote any one we wish. I tend to quote people more often; when they visit threads that I have created.

I see that you are new. Welcome to the forums.

As you are new; I'll turn a blind eye to some of the statements that you just made.

Now let's not stray off topic.

If you have any more questions or concerns; please feel free to send me a PM, and I'd be happy to share with you.

Again welcome to CF!

NomNomPizza · Apr 11, 2021

I watched seremon by guy called Rick Renner and he claims that this doctrine is what people would say nowdays just "acceptance" of everything just to not offend people , basically lukewarm gospel , removing doctrines which make people not comfortable , no separation from the world but trying to live like unbeliever who has fellowship with other unbeleivers but secretly he is believer. the doctrine of compromise.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2021

HARK! said:
So you think that there were two prominent heretics running around by the name of Nicolas, shortly after Yahshua's death?

Well, I can see how you think this may be the case, but it may be too much to say that there were only two men named Nicolas in the first century whom the term "heretic" could have applied to. And, I have doubts that it was the Nicolas named in Acts 6. If anything, we're kind of dishonoring the guy by assuming something about him for which we have virtually no clear and direct evidence.

While I agree with you that antinomianism isn't something we should smile at, I just don't think you can marry it up to an unsound identification of it with the teaching of the Nicolaitans mentioned by the Lord in the book of Revelation.

That's all I'm getting at. Moreover, the article I posted has some mitigating information. And if I have to read other people's articles in order to absorb their point, then I expect reciprocation if and when I also post an article supporting my own point of view.

Thank you!

expos4ever · Apr 11, 2021

I would warn readers to not fall for the following, faulty logic.

1. We are not to sin;
2. The Law of Moses tells the Jew what sin is.
3. Therefore, to deny the necessity of following the Law of Moses entails affirming sin.

Points 1 we all agree on. And I think most would agree with point 2. But point 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.

For example, if, say, God were to give us some indwelling faculty that enabled us to identify what sin is without ever having to consult the Law of Moses, then the above argument fails.

Now I wonder what that indwelling faculty might be.........

The Liturgist · Apr 11, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Even so, this doesn't mean that Ireneaus identified "Nicolas" correctly. We don't know that the Nicolas of Acts 6 indeed turned into a heretic ...

Actually we do. He is the only one of the Seven Deacons not venerated in any of the apostolic churches, and the reliability of Irenaeus has never been called into question. What is more, numerous other Patristics figures also describe the debauchery of Nicolas (not to be confused with St. Nicholas of Myra)

Dave L · Apr 11, 2021

expos4ever said:
I would warn readers to not fall for the following, faulty logic.

1. We are not to sin;
2. The Law of Moses tells the Jew what sin is.
3. Therefore, to deny the necessity of following the Law of Moses entails affirming sin.

Points 1 we all agree on. And I think most would agree with point 2. But point 3 does not follow from 1 and 2.

For example, if, say, God were to give us some indwelling faculty that enabled us to identify what sin is without ever having to consult the Law of Moses, then the above argument fails.

Now I wonder what that indwelling faculty might be.........

Jesus says you steal by not giving if you consider the Sermon on the Mount.

HARK! · Apr 11, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
While I agree with you that antinomianism isn't something we should smile at, I just don't think you can marry it up to an unsound identification of it with the teaching of the Nicolaitans mentioned by the Lord in the book of Revelation.

That's all I'm getting at. Moreover, the article I posted has some mitigating information. And if I have to read other people's articles in order to absorb their point, then I expect reciprocation if and when I also post an article supporting my own point of view.

Thank you!

I read the article that you presented. Thank you.

Please don't assume that I ignored your input.

If you have a counterargument that you would like to support with that article; then we can discuss it; but I'm not going to make your counterargument for you.

expos4ever · Apr 11, 2021

Dave L said:
Jesus says you steal by not giving if you consider the Sermon on the Mount.

I believe we agree - the Law of Moses is not the "one, final, all-encompassing" repertoire of God's criteria for recognizing sin.

The Liturgist · Apr 11, 2021

public hermit said:
Could Irenaues have been wrong? Not lying, but mistaken? Could have been that he mischaracterized, based on rumor, perhaps? Is Irenaues also inerrant?

Unlikely. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was one of the most careful and level headed of the early church fathers, and unlike later theologians specializing in cults, for example, Epiphanios, Irenaeus did not proceed to criticize groups on which he had incomplete or dubious information (although at least Epiphanios takes the trouble to admit when his information is lacking in quantity). Irenaeus was an extremely reasonable, well balanced bishop who among other accomplishments, rebuked Pope Victor of Rome and in so doing prevented Victor from causing a massive and pointless schism with the Church of Ephesus and several other churches in Asia Minor over the dating of Pascha.

The Liturgist · Apr 11, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
I think this is reading into the passage a bit too much. In fact, I don't think that we actually 'know' who the Nicolaitans are as they are referred to in a highly symbolic and metaphorical book, and especially not simply because Irenaeus later attempted to identify them as followers of "such and such."

Just because various Patristics "said so about such and such" doesn't make it so.

Irenasus did not “attempt” to identify them ex post facto; during the lifetime of Irenaeus most Christian bishops did not regard Revelations as scripture, and what is more, the Nicolaitan sect and descendants were still intact and competing with the Apostolic church. Thus their identity was self-evident.

The Liturgist · Apr 11, 2021

HARK! said:
We know that Antinomianism makes Yahshua angry.

(CLV) Mt 7:23
And then shall I be avowing to them that `I never knew you! Depart from Me, workers of lawlessness!'

Indeed, and it is for this reason I am so deeply saddened by the current state of the mainline Protestant churches. When you have ostensibly Christian churches actively promoting homosexual marriage, that is a huge problem.

The Liturgist · Apr 11, 2021

Simon D said:
Oh here we go again.

It was common in early church history to use the term to describe a number of heresies. I've already spoken with you in your other thread and found you argumentative. If you want to dictate again rather than discuss it's up to you, but I'm out. Have a good day and thanks for your time

Actually, that’s untrue. In my extensive reading of Patristics, both in divinity school and since that time, for my own edification as a presbyter, I have found the term Nicolaitan only literally applied to the sect organized by Nicolas the Deacon, after he was anathematized from the Church of Jerusalem for proposing what amounted to, to be very blunt, wife swapping (Nicolas was of the opinion that all things should be held in common, and then came to the extremely perverse conclusion that this should extend to the spouses of the brethren).

For this reason Nicolas became infamous in the early church, as infamous as Simon Magus, and his sect did secure a number of adherents. And it seems to me probable that some Roman accounts of Christians which depicted Christians engaged in sexual immorality were in fact the result of encounters between respectable Roman pagan authors and adherents of depraved Gnostic cults like the Nicolaitans.

The worst part is, as depraved Gnostic cults go, the Nicolaitans were merely the tip of the iceberg.

Der Alte · Apr 11, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Actually, that’s untrue. In my extensive reading of Patristics, both in divinity school and since that time, for my own edification as a presbyter, I have found the term Nicolaitan only literally applied to the sect organized by Nicolas the Deacon, after he was anathematized from the Church of Jerusalem for proposing what amounted to, to be very blunt, wife swapping (Nicolas was of the opinion that all things should be held in common, and then came to the extremely perverse conclusion that this should extend to the spouses of the brethren).
For this reason Nicolas became infamous in the early church, as infamous as Simon Magus, and his sect did secure a number of adherents. And it seems to me probable that some Roman accounts of Christians which depicted Christians engaged in sexual immorality were in fact the result of encounters between respectable Roman pagan authors and adherents of depraved Gnostic cults like the Nicolaitans.
The worst part is, as depraved Gnostic cults go, the Nicolaitans were merely the tip of the iceberg.

Quite enlightening. I have often wondered about the beliefs of the Nicolaitans. Seems like some moderns felt the same about wife swapping e.g. David Koresh, Jim Jones.

public hermit · Apr 11, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Unlikely. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was one of the most careful and level headed of the early church fathers, and unlike later theologians specializing in cults, for example, Epiphanios, Irenaeus did not proceed to criticize groups on which he had incomplete or dubious information (although at least Epiphanios takes the trouble to admit when his information is lacking in quantity). Irenaeus was an extremely reasonable, well balanced bishop who among other accomplishments, rebuked Pope Victor of Rome and in so doing prevented Victor from causing a massive and pointless schism with the Church of Ephesus and several other churches in Asia Minor over the dating of Pascha.

There's a bit to question in terms of historical accuracy. To be clear, in no way am I condoning antinomianism. And I really don't want to defend the Nicolaitons, whoever they were. But the connection between Nicolas (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6) and the sect is questionable. Ireneaus makes the connection; whereas, Clement of Alexandria defends him and considers the connection between him and the heresy in Revelation a misattribution. They (Nicolaitons) misappropriated things he said, Clement claims. Then the several accounts of who they were, and what they did varies. Finally, was it a group, or a term to refer to several practices? The connections between the words Nicolaitons and Balaam are interesting.

At any rate, I agree with the OP regarding antinomianism.

rockytopva · Apr 11, 2021

I believe in the seven churches as ages...

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

In which... If I am right... The Pergameon church age was in the time of the barbarian onslaughts. So I can sum up the Nicolaitans with one word... Barbaric!

Pavel Mosko · Apr 11, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Actually we do. He is the only one of the Seven Deacons not venerated in any of the apostolic churches, and the reliability of Irenaeus has never been called into question. What is more, numerous other Patristics figures also describe the debauchery of Nicolas (not to be confused with St. Nicholas of Myra)

Yes I will also point out that there is a general convention for naming heresies. That is if you know the specific founder of a heresy you name it after the founder, much like we do with other kinds of movements, sects, or even things like Holy Orders in Catholicism on the positive side of things. But anyway most heresies fit this category.

However if you do not really know the name of the guy who started it, you give it a general descriptive name: historical examples: Docetics, Ebionites, Donatists, Gnostics

public hermit · Apr 11, 2021

Pavel Mosko said:
However if you do not really know the name of the guy who started it

There's reason to think he didn't adhere to the heresy connected with his name, e.g Clement of Alexandria.

Pavel Mosko · Apr 11, 2021

I will also add this extra note. When the ancient Church named a heresy, and indeed named it after an alleged founder, that was also a way of pointing out that the teaching, position etc. is an "innovation", and that has negative connotations. Meaning or implying the person made it up, took a unique interpretation of scripture etc. vs. "The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints".

2PhiloVoid · Apr 11, 2021

HARK! said:
I read the article that you presented. Thank you.

Please don't assume that I ignored your input.

If you have a counterargument that you would like to support with that article; then we can discuss it; but I'm not going to make your counterargument for you.

At this point, being that my buddy @public hermit has already essentially said in his post above (#56) what I would have said, I'll decline from further comment.

Moreover, since the whole issue with the identity of the Nicolaitans in the book of Revelation is a tertiary one for me, and since I think we're all mostly in agreement about how antinomianism is deficient, there's not much more for me to say here other than ...

... Be blessed and thanks for letting us deliberate over some interesting historical points, Hark!

Beware the Nicolaitans

Well-Known Member

שמע

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

This is me about 1 yr. old.

social troglodyte

Love to pray! :)

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

social troglodyte

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Well-Known Member

Similar threads