Nicolaitanes

[Rick Otto]

Anybody know who they are?

 

[ZiSunka]

http://www.nathan.co.za/doctrine.asp

 

[Susan]

http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b05.html

Not about Nicolaitainism, but about William Branham.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi Susan.
I see you found Apologetics Index. Cool site, huh?
Have you everwondered who the Nicolaitanes are?
Do you know?
I've seen quite a bit about it, but Lamb's Love's link wouldn't connect for me.
Their seems to be some disagreement about whether the word refers to a certain sect of licentious persons having a leader named Nicholas, or whether it means what its simple word translation gives:
nico=conqueror + laity= the people
I believe Ireneaus is the first to attempt to identify them as a sect, but inconclusively for some. I have yet to locate a critique of this portion of his work.

 

[Susan]

I believe it was a certain sect of licentious persons. There was even someone named Nicolas mentioned in one of the Apostles' letters greetings (forgot which one) either way, I believe Mr. Branham's explanation is not the best.

 

[Rick Otto]

Excuse me. I meant unconvincingly, not inconclusively.

 

[Susan]

OK

 

[dignitized]

ALLOW ME TO CORRECT an error that seems to be prevalent in this thread. the word “Nicolaitanes” is NOT a fusion of two words to make another. I know that this doctrine is a favorite of men like David Jeremiah, but is completely and historically INACCURATE. The Nicolaitans were the followers of the deacon NICOLAS who was numbered among the first deacons. He attempted to combine the Christian faith with the licentiousness of the Greek cults. He was the first to advocate free love and sexual depravity amongst Christians – His doctrine was if it feels good DO IT (sound familiar??)

The favored notion of men like Jeremiah that the problem was with the ecclesiastical order is rooted NOT in historic fact, but rather in his anti-clerical bent.

 

[Rick Otto]

Thanks for your input Br. Max. I'm currently searching some sources on that difference of opinion. Ireneaus seems to be the earliest pro-sect report.
What sources have you considered?
I've heard that sects didn't start aquiring person associated names until the third century (about a couple hundred yrs after Revelation was written), and that at that time, the identification of Roman bishops as leaders among bishops was waxing strong - even before Constantine's conversion. The need to distance one's self from the image of secular hierachy and appear to conform more to an Apostolic Tradition would appeal to the purist who might value continuity of traditional authority over spiritual truth in various arenas.
The transition of the early church from persecuted bretheren to state sponsored religion had to be a source of identity crisis. I just wonder how such a simple structure became so complex and multilayered with positions and titles. An attendent symptom of "churchianity" is the passivity of the congregation.

What do you see as the bottom line of this "anti-clerical bent"?
And where do ya suppose it comes from?

 

[Susan]

Originally posted by Br. Max
ALLOW ME TO CORRECT an error that seems to be prevalent in this thread. the word “Nicolaitanes” is NOT a fusion of two words to make another. I know that this doctrine is a favorite of men like David Jeremiah, but is completely and historically INACCURATE. The Nicolaitans were the followers of the deacon NICOLAS who was numbered among the first deacons. He attempted to combine the Christian faith with the licentiousness of the Greek cults. He was the first to advocate free love and sexual depravity amongst Christians – His doctrine was if it feels good DO IT (sound familiar??)

The favored notion of men like Jeremiah that the problem was with the ecclesiastical order is rooted NOT in historic fact, but rather in his anti-clerical bent.

I never knew my pastor taught that. . .but thank you for clearing that up. I remembered that it was something to do with Nicolas.

Anyway, a complete AMEN to your condemnation of depravity and perversion. Too bad so many of us Christians seem to be on that same road For instance, look at the Song Of Solomon Conference and the couples materials by Focus on the Family to see what I'm talking about

 

[dignitized]

Rick otto: the bottom line is they are totally against the Christian priesthood and anything that "smells" catholic to them.

 

[dignitized]

Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoret all mention and discuss the Nicolaitans. Hippolytus based his narrative on Irenaeus, though he states that the deacon Nicholas was the author of the heresy and the sect. None of them refer to the Nicolaitans in light of an Ecclesiastical heresy, but always as a doctrine of promiscuity and licentiousness.


There is absolutely NO historic evidence for Nicolaitian being the combination of the Greek nikao, to conquer or overcome, and laos, for laity or people. This is the product of the imaginations of over zealous and under educated biblical Greek scholars who just so happen to be anti-clerical in their theological bents. They saw something in the word that fit what they had already concluded in their minds. Yet another case of fitting scripture to predrawn conclusions. Search all you like you will not find a single source which claims that Nicolaitians refers to an Ecclesiastical heresy who can offer one shred of historic proof for their claims. All they can do is bollix together verses to fit what they have already concluded in their minds to be the truth.

 

[Ainsley]

The Nicolaitanes were the followers of a man named Nicholas. That is all we can know for sure, and this is based on the most fundamental understanding of the messages to the seven churches - that they were messages to seven churches existing in Asia Minor at the time John wrote the Revelation. The more "spiritual" interpretation is based on the historicist understanding of Revelation - that the prophecy covers events and epochs in church history from the first century to the Second Coming, and that it is primarily concerned with the development of apostasy (and hence of Antichrist) within the Christian Church. Hence, the messages to the churches are also understood (in this view) to represent seven successive ages in the history of the Church, and Nicolaitanism becomes the development of a clergy class. Whether or not there was an apostasy is another matter, and this must be treated separately from the interpretation of the Revelation. Certainly, futurists, who leave the messages to the churches to apply to the time of writing while taking the rest of Revelation to be future, would not think that Nicolaitanism has a symbolic meaning at all, and neither would (partial) preterists who believe the bulk of the Revelation was fulfilled at the time of writing.

 

[ABDIarise]

What church does the Nicolaitans put you in mind of today? Only one really that comes to mind it seems. It will be really hard on them in the end.

 

[dignitized]

There is no Historical evidence for the notion that the John was speaking against the organized clergy - Especially since he was not only a MEMBER of the Clergy but a father of the clergy to which many churches trace their apostolic succession.

The notion of the Nicolaitans being those who advocate an organized priesthood is a RECENT one developed by those who are AGAINST the organized priesthood - go figure.

YHWH is a God of order working in order and through order. He does not change who he is or HOW he deals with his people. If God worked through Prophets and Priests in the OT, why do you think that in the NT he would change His ways?

YES Jesus Christ is the High Priest - but lets not forget that the OT priesthood consisted of MANY more than just the High Priest. The High Priest was chief of an entire priesthood.

YES there is a priesthood of all believers - there are also 2 separate priesthoods mentioned in the OT, that or Aaron and that of Melchizedek - One of merit and one of Grace.

History states that the Nicolaitans of which John Speaks were the followers of a John who was a Deacon and who tried to incorporate licentiousness and sexual promiscuity into the gospel. The closest thing we have to the Nicolaitans today would be Gene Robinson and his supporters.

 

[Rick Otto]

Br. Max, Ainsley,
did you guys read Lamb'slove's link?
It sounds more convincing & less biased than your posts. Esp. Br. Max.
I would guess Max, that you are projecting when you speak of "overzealous, undereducated people with an anti-clerical bent. My 1st suspicion is that you are yourself underzealous, overeducated, with a pro-clergy twist(lol).
Fallaciousness like "There is no historical evidence" is a clue.
I consider the scriptures to be historical evidence superior to any of the historians you listed, and have little respect for what appears to be some "bollixing together of scriptures" that you have done for yourself.
To claim that John was "a member of the clergy" is hilarious, since the formation of clergy requires the division of the body into clergy & laity, the deed that Jesus hates.
If the issue was sexual promiscuity, it wouldn't be such a stretch to prove it.
That issue is dealt with plenty in scripture without ambiguity.
That secular historians agree with you is no surprise, since they, like yourself, wouldn't even RECOGNIZE the clergy/laity division as Ecclesiastical heresy.
The only mindset that would allow this, is one that equates scripture with tradition.

Your claim that Nicolaitanism being identified as Ecclesiastical heresy is a "RECENT" notion, is as hilarious as saying God doesn't change HOW he deals with His people. I think that He would "change his ways" in the NT because it is His way to do so, as He plainly states in scripture. Of course His operating principles remain the same, but He now deals with us "differently", because He has changed our circumstances.
We are no longer under the law, so we only need one priest, not a slew of Levites who need to be supported by tithes so they can devote their time to animal sacrifice. We are now to be a nation of kings & priests. To delegate either of those personal responsibilities over to another is to aquire a "hireling" whose #1priority is keeping his job. Nicolaitanes prefer to continue the Aaronic line instead of entering the Melchizedek line, so they NEED the rationalizations you propose, just to keep their jobs.
I would have to conclude the Roman Catholics & Eastern Orthodox hold the corner on false hierarchies, with the Protestants running a close second. I prefer to answer the call to bear reproach with Christ OUTside "the camp", avoiding the errors of both.

From Lamb'slove's link:
"With the man-made doctrine of the elevation of bishops to a place not accorded them in Scripture, the next step was the handing out of graded titles that built up into a religious hierarchy; for soon there were archbishops over bishops and cardinals over the archbishops and by the time of Boniface the third there was a pope over all, a Pontiff."

And do we all know that "Pontificus Maximus" was the title of the Babylonian High Priest? Just a glance at all the pomp, regalia and popularity should be enough to see thru the artiface of human institution, glued with avarice & ambition, to the divine institutions of church & family.

Tho I think Lamb'slove is Armenian, she got this issue right, IMHO.

 

[dignitized]

Rick: Being Educated I'm wise enough to find any web link suspect. Any fool with a computer and some money can post up a webpage trying to prove and give credibility to any twisted argument. Perhaps it would behoove to spend less time reading WEB pages and more time invested in reading actual scholarly history.

BTW: "Pontificus Maximus" was the title of the ROMAN EMPERORS. Maximus meaning HIGH and Pontificus meaning BRIDGE BUILDER. Its LATIN. It was given to the emperors because only they BY LAW could build bridges across the Tiber River. *sigh* Thank you for proving my case.

 

[Rick Otto]

Proving your case? You're welcome! LOL.
I "get it."
"educated" - that was a "good one", too.
It's good to know neither of us is just "any" fool, heh?
"Scholarly"... over the top!
As "original" as the Romans were, they weren't the first to confuse humanity with deity. Neither were the Babylonians for that matter.
Switching issues IS easier than dealing with them, tho.
The sigh was poignant... good effect!

It's interesting that you would consider sexual promiscuity the issue, rather than the false hierarchy, since false religion is far more prevalent, and you seem to be aware of its importance from reading your posts on the "Peter is the rock" string. I'm a little surprised you don't see the many connections and implications of the clergy/laity division, since the "Pope Peter" issue is right there at its core.
If not "nicolaitanism", utilizing the "nico-laitane" reasoning, then what name would you or could I, give to this phenomena of dividing the body into leaders and followers with all its accoutremonts of titles & privileges, instead of remaining brothers?

 

[dignitized]

rick: there is no SWITCH here. Pontificus Maximus means SUPREME BRIDGE BUILDER, how on earth do you get from bridge builder of the Romans to High priest of the Babylonians?

False religion is one that teaches sin is acceptable or that there is salvation from other than Jesus Christ?

BTW - Just because I do not accept the claims of roman supremacy over the church does not mean I deny the reality of Apostolic secession. There are more churches than Rome with an organized clergy - The Orthodox, the Armenian, the Coptic, the Anglican, the Lutheran, the Celtic, the Syrian, etc. Most Protestant churches also have at least an abbreviate hierarchy. Presbyterian, Methodist, AME, etc.



BTW - the notion that the "priest" is some one who seeks a position of glory, while it might have been true 500 years ago in western Europe, when land and title came with ecclesiastical appointments, times have changed my friend. I do not wear my habit - and I do wear a habit as a Franciscan, I am not in any way seeking to draw attention to ME - if I wanted attention draw to ME I’d dye my hair blue and get piercings and tattoos - but rather to confess Christ and a life lived for His glory and service. before assuming that when some one wears a robe that they are seeing position, it would behoove one to seek from the person their motivations rather than making assumptions.

SO - back to the topic, historic sources state that Nicolas was a pervert not some one trying to "usurp" authority. Can you offer any historic sources which claim otherwise?

 

[Rick Otto]

I'll have to get back to you on my source re: the title.

I believe Canon 9 from the Council of Trent establishes the "salvation from other than Christ" requirement, and an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidences teach by example, tho denied by serving lips, that sin is indeed acceptable, when authorized by tradition.

Was it St. Francis (the Jesuit) who said he would not even believe the Gospel if the Holy Father ordered him not too?
I'll fetch that one for ya too (I'm on a lunch break).

Finally I have to LOL at the irony of NOT wearing a habit to attract attention. It may have held some water 500 years ago when common women's headgear was basically the same, but to do ANYthing noticeably different, and then say you didn't do it to be different is the kind of thing I might expect from a toddler who entertains fantasy more than deals with reality, but in an adult it strikes me as... wrong.
The depth of self denial is staggering, IMHO.

Iknow, Iknow, I probably have the same effect on you, but...
if our sensibilities are so radically different on such a basic level, it would be senseless for us to agree on any of these issues.
I mean, not only did I question the usefullness, much less validity of historic sources, I was willing to limit sources to the bible, but your interest returns to men & THEIR history.
gotta run...