Beware the Nicolaitans

[HARK!]

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

 

[public hermit]

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

Right. It's the difference between mere belief, i.e. intellectual assent; and the kind of love that reflects Christ's love for us. Love fulfills the law, so...ipso facto.

 

[HARK!]

Right. It's the difference between mere belief, i.e. intellectual assent; and the kind of love that reflects Christ's love for us. Love fulfills the law, so...ipso facto.

Indeed this is nothing new; it's the nomos.

(CLV) Mt 22:36
"Teacher, what is the great precept in the law?"

(CLV) Mt 22:37
Now He averred to him, "You shall be loving the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole comprehension.

(CLV) Mt 22:38
This is the great and foremost precept.

(CLV) Mt 22:39
Yet the second is like it: `You shall be loving your associate as yourself.'

(CLV) Mt 22:40
On these two precepts is hanging the whole law and the prophets."

(CLV) Dt 6:5
So you will love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your intensity.

(CLV) Lv 19:18
You shall not avenge nor shall you be resentful against the sons of your people. You will love your associate as yourself: I am YHWH.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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.

 

[public hermit]

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."

You're right. We don't know who the "Nicolatians" were. And, what we think we know is based on a mirror reading of their critic's texts! Hermeneutics, son. We know Pauline dung.

 

[HARK!]

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.

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

 

[HARK!]

We know Pauline dung.

I don't. What's that?

 

[public hermit]

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

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

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

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 ...

 

[public hermit]

I don't. What's that?

Paul referred to feces in one of his passages. I'm not saying his name is a common adjective for such, but in terms of reference, it's helpful.

 

[HARK!]

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

Do you think that Irenaeus was wrong in his understanding that Antinomianism is wrong?

 

[HARK!]

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 ...

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

 

[public hermit]

Do you think that Irenaeus was wrong in his understanding that Antinomianism is wrong?

The question is not about a certain position that, practically speaking, functions as if God has no will (law). The question concerns whether or not Irenaeus pegged the so-called "Nicolations" accurately. Where's their documents? What's their position? We have their opponent's position. To be intellectually honest, we would have to take that into account. Grain of salt, as they say. We are trying to mirror read the documents of the Nicolation's opponents. That's a credulity adjustment if I've ever seen one.

 

[HARK!]

The question is not about a certain position that, practically speaking, functions as if God has no will (law). The question concerns whether or not Irenaeus pegged the so-called "Nicolations" accurately. Where's their documents? What's their position? We have their opponent's position. To be intellectually honest, we would have to take that into account. Grain of salt, as they say. We are trying to mirror read the documents of the Nicolation's opponents. That's a credulity adjustment if I've ever seen one.

If Yahshua says that he hates the Nicolaitans, and not to follow their teachings; that's good enough for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

It's hard to know, and in addition to the informative article you've presented in your OP, we might pull further considerations into this discussion with the following article:

Nicolaism - Wikipedia

 

[public hermit]

If Yahshua says that he hates the Nicolaitans, and not to follow their teachings; that's good enough for me.

I'm sorry. We're playing on completely different ball fields. My mistake. Peace.

 

[NomNomPizza]

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

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?

 

[HARK!]

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?

Well considering that Revelation was written by the Apostle John and the testimony is from Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John; I suspect that we have a valid definition.

It's supported by the root source:

(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring
(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
(CLV) Mt 5:20
For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be superabounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.

 

[NomNomPizza]

Well considering that Revelation was written by the Apostle John and the testimony is from Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John; I suspect that we have a valid definition.

It's supported by the root source:

(CLV) Mt 5:18
For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from the law till all should be occurring
(CLV) Mt 5:19
"Whosoever, then, should be annulling one of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
(CLV) Mt 5:20
For I am saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be superabounding more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering into the kingdom of the heavens.

what u quoted doesn't say anything about the doctrine tho just basic things we should or shouldn't be doing.

It's similar to saying that whoever takes or adds to the Book will have added plagues of this book but we actually don't know what they added or removed nor what were thier intentions. We don't know what exactly Nicolatians did to make Jesus angry , kinda weird since if he hates it so much we ought to know somehow somewhere just like when he was angry at Leodicea chruch he explained why exactly he was mad at them.

 

[HARK!]

what u quoted doesn't say anything about the doctrine tho just basic things we should or shouldn't be doing.

It's similar to saying that whoever takes or adds to the Book will have added plagues of this book but we actually don't know what they added or removed nor what were thier intentions. We don't know what exactly Nicolatians did to make Jesus angry , kinda weird since if he hates it so much we ought to know somehow somewhere just like when he was angry at Leodicea chruch he explained why exactly he was mad at them.

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!'