Beware the Nicolaitans

klutedavid · Apr 11, 2021

HARK! said:
Irenaeus (ca. 125-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of the Apostle John.

https://www.theopedia.com/irenaeus

You accept the writing of Irenaeus but do you accept the writing, of other early church authors?

HARK! · Apr 11, 2021

klutedavid said:
You accept the writing of Irenaeus but do you accept the writing, of other early church authors?

Do you accept the writings of Irenaeus?

klutedavid · Apr 11, 2021

HARK! said:
Do you accept the writings of Irenaeus?

I asked first.

HARK! · Apr 11, 2021

klutedavid said:
I asked first.

I presented the writings of Irenaeus. The portion of your question that is relevant to this topic was answered, to some degree, before you asked the question.

Your turn.

klutedavid · Apr 12, 2021

HARK! said:
I presented the writings of Irenaeus. The portion of your question that is relevant to this topic was answered, to some degree, before you asked the question.

Your turn.

I am forced to accept the early church authors simply because. It is their letters that enable us to derive the New Testament. If I ignored the letters of the first four centuries, I would lose the New Testament.

So Hark, do you accept the letters written in the first four centuries?

Pavel Mosko · Apr 12, 2021

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

I really like that account and that of Eusebius. After reading the history of Simon Magus, how his tale became intertwined and misidentified with other people and landmarks (Like a statue of a Roman God on some river was attributed to Simon Magus because the name was similar), I can accept that he may have had his words twisted or deliberately misrepresented by some of the locals of the area to give them cover for their orgies or whatever.

That sort of thing has happened before, especially concerning the history of apostles Matthew and Mattias where their histories got confused in some accounts because their names were so similar.

Psalm 27 · Apr 12, 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

That The Lord hates (vomits them out) their deeds, should prompt us to find out what they were/are, and have no part in them.
P.S. I read a commentary, many years ago, that the Nicolatians ‘deeds’ were also the introduction of hierarchy into the church. Bishops etc. I don’t know where I read that.

chad kincham · Apr 12, 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.

Fortunately God made the Bible very easy to understand, because all symbolism is either explained immediately in the text, or can easily be found in the Old Testament - such as the Woman in Revelation ch 12, with the sun, moon and stars.

chad kincham · Apr 12, 2021

NomNomPizza said:
Can u find somewhere in Bible defined this Nicolatians doctrine or is it just speculations of people?Do we get it from sources like earlly Christian fathers writtings to each other or something?

Here’s this commentary from J F and B:

The name, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare Rev 2:14, Rev 2:15, which shows the true sense of Nicolaitanes; they are not a sect, but professing Christians who, like Balaam of old. tried to introduce into the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness; this was a reaction in the opposite direction from Judaism, the first danger to the Church combated in the council of Jerusalem, and by Paul in the Epistle to Galatians. These symbolical Nicolaitanes, or followers of Balaam, abused Paul’s doctrine of the grace of God into a plea for lasciviousness (2Pe 2:15, 2Pe 2:16, 2Pe 2:19; Jud 1:4, Jud 1:11 who both describe the same sort of seducers as followers of Balaam)

lsume · Apr 12, 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

The New Testament makes it clear that willful sin gets the whip.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 12, 2021

chad kincham said:
Fortunately God made the Bible very easy to understand, because all symbolism is either explained immediately in the text, or can easily be found in the Old Testament - such as the Woman in Revelation ch 12, with the sun, moon and stars.

Well then, so much for the field of Hermeneutics and Exegesis. And if reading and understanding the Bible is as easy as you say it is, then in fact, no one needs a pastor, preacher, teacher or anyone else to explain the Bible to him.

Of course, then we have to wonder why there's so many denominational disputes...or a section in C.F. for "controversial theology," since.........................it shouldn't be controversial.

And if this is the case, I guess I can throw out my library too, since all of the books on theology, history of theology, church history, distinction of thought between theologians and denominations, epistemology, typology, and whatever else .... isn't needed. We can just read our Bibles, all by themselves, and know everything we need to know.

Wait a minute! Somehow, all of that doesn't sound right or like the reality I know.

chad kincham · Apr 12, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
Well then, so much for the field of Hermeneutics and Exegesis. And if reading and understanding the Bible is as easy as you say it is, then in fact, no one needs a pastor, preacher, teacher or anyone else to explain the Bible to him.

Of course, then we have to wonder why there's so many denominational disputes...or a section in C.F. for "controversial theology," since.........................it shouldn't be controversial.

And if this is the case, I guess I can throw out my library too, since all of the books on theology, history of theology, church history, distinction of thought between theologians and denominations, epistemology, typology, and whatever else .... isn't needed. We can just read our Bibles, all by themselves, and know everything we need to know.

Wait a minute! Somehow, all of that doesn't sound right or like the reality I know.

That’s right, you don’t need someone to tell you what the Bible says to understand it, don’t need someone’s collection of proof texts and systematic theology, don’t need all the terms to impress someone’ with what a brain you are by using words like exegesis, eisegesis, hermeneutics, etc
What a Christian needs is to study to show THEMSELVES approved unto God, by rightly dividing the word of truth as the Bible exhorts us to do, and as Jesus said, study the scriptures - and as they do that, the Holy Spirit is their teacher and guide who leads them to the truth.
And none of the above given to your sarcastic response to my post changes the truth of the fact that the symbolism in the Bible is explained IN the Bible itself.
I’m surprised that none of the books in your vast library pointed out that fact.
Oh well, maybe you just need to add a dozen more scholarly tomes to your reading list, maybe one of them will state that, so you’ll believe it - if the author is sufficiently educated, with enough degrees to be impressive - which is what matters, right?

2PhiloVoid · Apr 12, 2021

chad kincham said:
That’s right, you don’t need someone to tell you what the Bible says to understand it, don’t need someone’s collection of proof texts and systematic theology, don’t need all the terms to impress someone’ with what a brain you are by using words like exegesis, eisegesis, hermeneutics, etc
What a Christian needs is to study to show THEMSELVES approved unto God, by rightly dividing the word of truth as the Bible exhorts us to do, and as Jesus said, study the scriptures - and as they do that, the Holy Spirit is their teacher and guide who leads them to the truth.
And none of the above given to your sarcastic response to my post changes the truth of the fact that the symbolism in the Bible is explained IN the Bible itself.
I’m surprised that none of the books in your vast library pointed out that fact.
Oh well, maybe you just need to add a dozen more scholarly tomes to your reading list, maybe one of them will state that, so you’ll believe it - if the author is sufficiently educated, with enough degrees to be impressive - which is what matters, right?

I never said that one needs a degree to be impressive.

But I think you're wrong to say that "The Holy Spirit" will just fill you in on every meaning in the biblical text by fiat. If He were really doing this, especially in the way that a number of Christians today claim He is when they posit confidently their interpretation of about two fingers worth of verses in the Gospel of John, then I'd think we'd have a lot more agreement over various issues than we've all actually had these last 2,000 years.

GreekOrthodox · Apr 12, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
And if this is the case, I guess I can throw out my library too, since all of the books on theology, history of theology, church history, distinction of thought between theologians and denominations, epistemology, typology, and whatever else .... isn't needed. We can just read our Bibles, all by themselves, and know everything we need to know.

Wait a minute! Somehow, all of that doesn't sound right or like the reality I know.

Pavel Mosko · Apr 12, 2021

2PhiloVoid said:
I never said that one needs a degree to be impressive.

But I think you're wrong to say that "The Holy Spirit" will just fill you in on every meaning in the biblical text by fiat. If He were really doing this, especially in the way that a number of Christians today claim He is when they posit confidently their interpretation of about two fingers worth of verses in the Gospel of John, then I'd think we'd have a lot more agreement over various issues than we've all actually had these last 2,000 years.

I got stories from my days in the Charismatic movement that are proof texts for what you are talking about. Especially from the Prophetic movement where people believed they had supernatural insight. Here's a little excerpt from one of my old thread's linked below.

"But here are 2 examples:

11Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Sadu Sundar Selvaraj in preaching seems to imply having a revelation on that passage on why that is. He believes because John doubted while he was in prison is why he isn't as great, but really pretty much the common almost universal interpretation of that passage is because we in the New Testament have a better covenant than the OT one and John was the last minister of the Old Covenant.

Rick Joyner has had some biggies too.

3 Now Moses was a very humble man, more so than any man on the face of the earth

He believes that Moses was prophesying about himself! But in Hebrew class we discussed scribal remarks. At one time, the scribes had a habit of writing clarifying remarks in the text to act like footnotes (to help out the younger people after the customs and culture changed. The sandal swapping explanation remark in Ruth is another example)."

Anti-intellectualism and hostility to Theology

2PhiloVoid · Apr 12, 2021

Pavel Mosko said:
I got stories from my days in the Charismatic movement that are proof texts for what you are talking about. Especially from the Prophetic movement where people believed they had supernatural insight. Here's a little excerpt from one of my old thread's linked below.

"But here are 2 examples:

11Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Sadu Sundar Selvaraj in preaching seems to imply having a revelation on that passage on why that is. He believes because John doubted while he was in prison is why he isn't as great, but really pretty much the common almost universal interpretation of that passage is because we in the New Testament have a better covenant than the OT one and John was the last minister of the Old Covenant.

Rick Joyner has had some biggies too.

3 Now Moses was a very humble man, more so than any man on the face of the earth

He believes that Moses was prophesying about himself! But in Hebrew class we discussed scribal remarks. At one time, the scribes had a habit of writing clarifying remarks in the text to act like footnotes (to help out the younger people after the customs and culture changed. The sandal swapping explanation remark in Ruth is another example)."

Anti-intellectualism and hostility to Theology

Yeah, I've had some run-ins with a lot of that kind of thing where I live too, Pavel. Thank you for adding the examples and your link. That helps.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 12, 2021

chad kincham said:
Here’s this commentary from J F and B:

The name, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare Rev 2:14, Rev 2:15, which shows the true sense of Nicolaitanes; they are not a sect, but professing Christians who, like Balaam of old. tried to introduce into the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness; this was a reaction in the opposite direction from Judaism, the first danger to the Church combated in the council of Jerusalem, and by Paul in the Epistle to Galatians. These symbolical Nicolaitanes, or followers of Balaam, abused Paul’s doctrine of the grace of God into a plea for lasciviousness (2Pe 2:15, 2Pe 2:16, 2Pe 2:19; Jud 1:4, Jud 1:11 who both describe the same sort of seducers as followers of Balaam)

See? I actually agree with you that the name is symbolic. So, we have at least that in common.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 12, 2021

Pavel Mosko said:
I really like that account and that of Eusebius. After reading the history of Simon Magus, how his tale became intertwined and misidentified with other people and landmarks (Like a statue of a Roman God on some river was attributed to Simon Magus because the name was similar), I can accept that he may have had his words twisted or deliberately misrepresented by some of the locals of the area to give them cover for their orgies or whatever.

That sort of thing has happened before, especially concerning the history of apostles Matthew and Mattias where their histories got confused in some accounts because their names were so similar.

One thing I find a little odd is that the writer of Acts (Luke) knew about Simon Magus but didn't seem to know much about Nicolas. I'm wondering if this seems odd to anyone else. Maybe Simon Magus made a bigger splash and was remembered better. I don't know.

chad kincham · Apr 12, 2021

The Bible isn’t intended by God to need a degree to properly understand it.

Karl Barth, the famous scholar, was once asked what the most important thing he’d learned in all his years of scholarship and theological study - to which he replied:

Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

John Mullally · Apr 13, 2021

Dave L said:
Harmony with the law because of the New Birth is not legalistic. It is more like a cat acts like a cat because it is a cat. Forced obedience to the law from an unchanged heart is nothing more than hypocrisy.

God condones people operating out of good conscience as is the case of the first Gentile convert Cornelius in Acts 10:

Acts 10:4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?” So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. 5Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.”

Beware the Nicolaitans

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

שמע

Well-Known Member

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Psalti Chrysostom

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads