Nicolaitanes

[Rick Otto]

Anybody here know who they are/were?

 

[heymikey80]

Anybody here know who they are/were?

Just Irenaeus' statement that they led lives of indulgence out of control.

 

[Rick Otto]

I've heard it before, but not any reference.

Scofield has interesting comment:
Here's decent a link on him:
http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

And here's what Scofield has to say about nicolaitanes.
(The KJV capitlized the word, but that was in keeping with King James' other revisions.)

"From nikao, "to conquer," & laos, "the people," or "laity". There is no ancient authority for a sect of the Nicolaitanes.* If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of a notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood (Matt 23:8) into "priests" & "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" (Rev 2:6) had become in Pergamos a "doctrine." (Rev 2:15) " - I have a copy, haven't found one online yet.

* even John Gill says "they were promiscuos followers of Nicolas of Antioch", a guy mentioned in Acts 6:5, prompted by the conjecture of a Dr. Lightfoot who was IMHO, a product of the nicolaitane establishment:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentar...007&prev=005#d

On Dr. Lightfoot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lightfoot


Watchman Nee has this to say in "Orthodoxy of the Church:
But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (v. 6). Nicolaitans cannot be found in church history. Since Revelation is a book of prophecy, we must look into the meaning of the word. Nicolait in Greek is composed of two words. Nikao means "conquer" or "above others." Laos means "common people," "secular people," or "laity." So nicolait means "conquering the common people," "climbing above the laity." Nicolaitans, then, refers to a group of people who esteem themselves higher than the common believers. The Lord is above; the common believers are below. The Nicolaitans are below the Lord yet above the common believers. The Lord hates the behavior of the Nicolaitans. The conduct of climbing over and above the common believers as a mediatorial class is what the Lord detests; it is something to be hated. But at that time there was only the behavior; it had not yet become a teaching.
In the New Testament there is a fundamental principle: All of the children of God are priests of God. In Exodus 19:5-6 God called unto the people of Israel, saying, "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." God ordained in the beginning that the whole nation be priests, but the incident of worshipping the golden calf occurred not long after. Moses broke the tables of law and said, "Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me...And slay every man his brother" (32:26-27). At that time the Levites came to stand on the Lord's side, and as a result, three thousand Israelites were slain on that day (v. 28). Henceforth, only the Levites could be priests; the kingdom of priests became a tribe of priests. The rest of the people of Israel could not be priests, and they had to depend on the Levites to be the priests on their behalf. The priestly class in the Old Testament was a mediatorial class. However, in the New Testament, Peter said, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired for a possession" (1 Pet. 2:9). We, the whole church, are priests; this goes back to the condition in the beginning. Revelation 1:5-6 says that as many as are washed in the blood are priests. The priests are in charge of God's business; every believer is in charge of God's business. There should not be a mediatorial class in the church. The church has only one High Priest, the Lord Jesus.
Before a change took place in the church, all the believers took care of the Lord's business. But after the apostles, this condition began to change; men began to lose interest in the matter of serving the Lord. When the Roman Catholic Church began (in the time of Pergamos), there were few who were saved but many who were baptized; thus, unbelievers filled the church. Then there appeared a group of "clergy." Since there were members who were not spiritual, what could they do? Asking them to put down the account books and pick up the Bible to preach would not be fitting. So a group of people was sought out to take special care of spiritual affairs while the rest did secular work. Thus, the "clergy" was produced contrary to God's desire. God desires that all who do secular work should also take care of spiritual affairs.
In the Roman Catholic Church, the dispensing of the bread, the laying on of hands, baptizing, etc., are all performed by the Catholic priests; even weddings and funerals must be undertaken by the "clergy." In the Protestant church there are pastors. For illness, call the doctor; for lawsuits, call the lawyer; for spiritual affairs, call the pastor. What about us? We can devote ourselves to secular work without distraction. But please remember, in Taoism the Taoist priests chant the liturgy for people; in Judaism the priests manage the things of God for men. However, in the church, there should not be any mediatorial class, because we ourselves are all priests.
It is for this reason that we have been crying out concerning the "universal priesthood" for twenty years. Abel could offer a sacrifice; so could Noah. In the beginning the people of Israel could all offer sacrifices; but later, because of the incident of the golden calf, they could not offer sacrifices themselves. God says that every believer can come directly to God. But now there are the mediatorial people in the church. Today there are Nicolaitans in the church; therefore, Christianity has become Judaism.
The Lord is pleased with those who reject the mediatorial class. If you have been washed by the blood, you have a direct share in spiritual affairs. The church can only be founded on this ground; otherwise, it is Judaism. Therefore, we are not just fighting the matter of sects, but we are fighting for the privilege of the blood. Today there are three main categories of churches in the world: one is the world church, that is, the Roman Catholic Church; one is the state church, such as the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church; and one is the independent church, such as the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, etc. In the Roman Catholic Church there is the (Catholic) priestly system, in the Anglican Church there is the clerical system, and in the independent churches there is the pastoral system. All we see is a mediatorial class which undertakes spiritual affairs. But the church God wants to establish is one in which He can place the whole gospel without the mediatorial class. If there is anything present that does not conform to the whole gospel, then that is not the church.
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (Rev. 2:7a). The Lord speaks in this same way to all the seven churches, showing that not only the church at Ephesus should hear, but all the churches must hear.
"To him who overcomes, to him I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God" (v. 7b). God's original intention for man was that he eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Now God says that we can come directly to Him and do according to His original intention. The question is not what the tree of life is; rather, the question is whether we are willing to follow God's initial intention to eat of the fruit of the tree of life in the garden of God. Only the overcomers can eat. Whoever returns to the original intention and demand of God is an overcomer.

 

[Dmckay]

John dealt with this group of extreme gnostics in 1 & 2 John as well as Revelation 2:6,14,15. These claimed that, since their bodies were physical (and thus evil), only what their spirits did was important. This made them feel free to indulge in indiscriminate sexual relationships, to eat food dedicated to idols, and basically do anything with their bodies that pleased them.

The early church, and especially the apostles dealt severely with heretics so that their poisonous ideas wouldn't spread and infect the entire church. Irenaeus, Tertullian and several other church fathers denounced the Nicolaitans along with other gnostic groups. Irenaeus reported that the sect was named for Nicolaos, a deacon of the first Nicolaitan community, who practiced adultery.

 

[murjahel]

The church at Ephesus was praised for hating this doctrine... "hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes."

The word "Nicolaitanes" comes from the word "nikao", which means "to conquer": and from the word "laos", which means "people."

The Nicolaitanes taught the idea of a priestly order in the church to be "more equal" than others. This idea became doctrine in the third and fourth periods of the church.

The church at Ephesus was praised for hating this doctrine. We may have different ministries in the church, but God does not bless, or love one Christian above another.

In the Ephesus church period, the apostles, and disciples went about the world starting churches, with a teaching contrary to other religions which had priests and priestesses lording over a laity. The pharisaical domination of Judaism, and other religions was trying to find a foot hold in the church.

This was the Nicolaitan doctrine, and the Ephesus church hated it. So did John, as evidenced by his words about Diotrephes (III John 1:9-10).

Peter tried to counter it with disapproving the ‘lord’ priesthood mentality (I Peter 5:3-4).

In the Pergamos period, Constantine stopped the persecutions of the Christian church and united the church and the state, this was the ‘balaam doctrine’. And this uniting brought heathen into the church, for it became a crime not to be in the Christian church.

Then in A.D. 325, the first great church council was held in Nicea. At least 1500 delegates arrived, some Christian, some heathen pretending to be Christian. It was stormy, vote bribing became common, and a clergy was set up, to which the laity were to be accountable.

The personal communication with the Lord was lost to many, for many never had such anyhow, for they were not Christians.

The heathenism of which they had been a part, had a priesthood... and they set one up for Christianity to have.

They could not comprehend the priesthood of believers.

Thus, the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, that the Ephesus church hated, had in this period become the "deeds" which were a part of the Pergamos age.
​

Nicolas was one of seven,
from the 70 disciples of the Lord, chosen to act as some of the first ‘deacons’. (Acts 6:5).

He was originally from Antioch. It is said that he was one ‘of good report, full of the Spirit, and of wisdom." (Acts 6:3).

Like Judas was a betrayer, and failure amidst the 12 disciples, Nicolaus was a failure amidst the 70, and amidst the deacons.

Ireneas, Hippolytus, and others of the early church confirm that Nicolas was the founder of the Nicolaitanes’ doctrine.

Even early in the church, a cover-up was attempted, for this verse, Rev. 2:15, indicates that ‘also’ this doctrine was wrong, it does not equate Balaamism to Nicolaitanes’ doctrine. But the early church soon made the Nicolaitanes doctrine to be part of the church, and therefore this still condemnation of such had to be squelched......

Their method was to make the Balaam ideology and the Nicolaitanes ideology to be identical, and thereby never have to answer for why they had taken into church doctrine, this errant Nicolaitanes heresy, which Jesus said He hated.

So, many commentaries and Bible dictionaries will spread the idea put forth by Catholic proponents, who try to ignore the facts of what this doctrine is.... Many in the Nicolaitanes’ heresy likely did swallow also the Balaam heresy, and practice such.

But the two are separate false doctrines. The "Nicolaitanes" are mentioned again here, following its first mention in Rev. 2:6, for in this Pergamos age the clergy began to demand undue pre-eminence and worship. The people became spectators, and not participants. Notice the ‘also’, meaning that his doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, was not identical to the doctrine of Balaam. Some likely held both false doctrines, but this is a separate error referred to here, and is one that is spelled out as ‘hated’ by our Lord.

The Greek word "nikao" means "to conquer"……"to dominate" to intimidate" and "to manipulate". This refers to undue control. The word "laos" means "the people"……and here refers to the laity.

The Lord knew that in the ages to come, the church would be overrun and controlled with those who claim this doctrine to be ‘truth’. So, in the word, the name itself, He has revealed what the church for so long tried to hide. There was to be no intimidating, controlling, power-hungry lords playing overlord, "baal", to the layman.​

The church is a ‘body’, and its Head is Jesus. Yet, down through the ages, just as Lucifer wanted to ascend to the throne of God, so many of the church seek to un-seat Jesus, and impose his or her will upon others, twisting Scripture in a dictatorial manner. These are the "wolves" of Ephesus that Paul referred to in

Acts 20:28-31.
"Take heed therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episkopos, a bishop, a preaching elder), to fed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His Own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."

These who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, have the nature of a wolf, says Paul.​

A wolf will encircle its victim and attack. There are some who prefer to have someone else to think for them……..

Interpret the Bible, and to shepherd them. These followers believe that this will bring them into the fellowship of God. And it is easier for them, than for them to themselves to build a relationship with the Lord, to hear personally from Him. Weak Christians will gravitate toward "religious lords".

There are some in the church who need to be needed, and must surround themselves with "their flock" who will be easily swayed to whatever the controlling, shepherding one wants.

These ones will hate the direct access of others to the Holy Spirit. They feel that they themselves are a knowledgeable, in tune with the Spirit mediator…… who should shepherd, guide, lord others, rather than with the Word of God, and with teaching each saint to personally speak with the Lord themselves.

The teaching of the priesthood of the believer and of the personal relationship of each believer with the Lord, Who wants to be the only Lord for each believer needs a re-teaching. The ones who want to control ministries, persons of God will attack and oppose anyone teaching the priesthood of believers.

​

​

 

[a_ntv]

The church at Ephesus was praised for hating this doctrine... "hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes." ​

The word "Nicolaitanes" comes from the word "nikao", which means "to conquer": and from the word "laos", which means "people." ​

The Nicolaitanes taught the idea of a priestly order in the church to be "more equal" than others. This idea became doctrine in the third and fourth periods of the church. ​

The church at Ephesus was praised for hating this doctrine. We may have different ministries in the church, but God does not bless, or love one Christian above another. ​

In the Ephesus church period, the apostles, and disciples went about the world starting churches, with a teaching contrary to other religions which had priests and priestesses lording over a laity. The pharisaical domination of Judaism, and other religions was trying to find a foot hold in the church.​

This was the Nicolaitan doctrine, and the Ephesus church hated it. So did John, as evidenced by his words about Diotrephes (III John 1:9-10). ​

Peter tried to counter it with disapproving the ‘lord’ priesthood mentality (I Peter 5:3-4). ​

In the Pergamos period, Constantine stopped the persecutions of the Christian church and united the church and the state, this was the ‘balaam doctrine’. And this uniting brought heathen into the church, for it became a crime not to be in the Christian church.​

You started to write a correct post, till you speak about Costantine, where start some un-correct statments. The first uncorrect statment is that under Costantine it became a crime not to be in the christian Church. That is a historical false (and not a light one).

You comdamn Nicolaites for the fact they had bishops and priests and deacons. That is not correct. All early Churches had some ministries, and anyway to be a minister is NOT to be more loved by God. Bishops, priests and popes are no different from any other human being about their salvation. That is the doctrine of Catholic Church, I dont know about protestants.

Anyway the Nicolaites were attached by the Church Fathers not bc their idea of hierarchy, but bc they were adultery, participate in the idolatrous feasts of pagans, and unchastity:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (170 A.D): "The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate." ( Book I Chapter 26 verse 3)
TERTULLIAN (212 A.D.): "A BROTHER HERETIC EMERGED IN NICOLAUS. HE WAS ONE OF THE SEVEN DEACONS WHO WERE APPOINTED IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. He affirms that Darkness was seized with a concupiscence — and, indeed, a foul and obscene one — after Light: out of this permixture it is a shame to say what fetid and unclean (combinations arose). The rest (of his tenets), too, are obscene. For he tells of certain Aeons, sons of turpitude, and of conjunctions of execrable and obscene embraces and per-mixtures, and certain yet baser outcomes of these. He teaches that there were born, moreover, daemons, and gods, and spirits seven, and other things sufficiently sacrilegious. alike and foul, which we blush to recount, and at once pass them by. Enough it is for us that this heresy of the Nicolaitans has been condemned by the Apocalypse of the Lord with the weightiest" (Against All Heresies. Chapter 1)
HIPPOLYTUS (215 A.D.) "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."(The Refutation of All Heresies Book 5 Chapter 24)

I would like to remaind that to claim that the Catholic Church has its roots in such a vile and disgusting sect as the Nicolaites is something utterly ridiculous, especially when one considers the fact that the Catholic Church founded by Jesus condemns the doctrines of the Nicolaites and the Nicolaites themselves.

 

[murjahel]

quote... The first uncorrect statment is that under Costantine it became a crime not to be in the christian Church. That is a historical false (and not a light one).end quote...

If you read carefully, I mention Constantine,
and changes...
but then the statement you refer to says...
and
'it became a crime not to be in the...'

It was not during Constantine's time,
but that direction started then,
and continued...
and in church history you will see that
it did become a crime
not to be in the RC church...
and many were killed for not wanting in that church...​

quote """You comdamn Nicolaites for the fact they had bishops and priests and deacons. That is not correct. All early Churches had some ministries, and anyway to be a minister is NOT to be more loved by God. Bishops, priests and popes are no different from any other human being about their salvation. That is the doctrine of Catholic Church, I dont know about protestants. end quote...

In both protestants and catholics
we find some who demand more respect
for certain leaders
and all are supposed to listen to them,
heed their interpretations,
and
regard them in a higher order than the rest...
This is growing in many denominations...
It is decreasing in RC congregations to a great degree...
This is the nicolaitan false doctrine,
and Jesus had recorded in the N.T.
that we are a 'royal priesthood'
and He is the only High Priest..
so we do not need a priesthood to
be between us and Him..
and we each go directly to God,
repent directly to Him,

ministers and pastors are meant
not to be 'lords' but to be 'examples'
and preach the Word

Too many, in many denominations,
want to 'lord' over others..
​

quote...Anyway the Nicolaites were attached by the Church Fathers not bc their idea of hierarchy, but bc they were adultery, participate in the idolatrous feasts of pagans, and unchastity:end quote...

I assumed that true too... but upon further research found that that is the misstatement that many in the nicolaitan movement tried to make the sins of 'balaam' mentioned in the same passage to be the sins of the nicolaitans.... and that is not correct...

By picking and choosing what the early church mentioned about them, one can show that some of the sins of the nicolaitans did include adultery, etc... but that is not what made them different from the balaamites, that is a similarity... but in early church writings of the first 300 years, we find more definitive definition... After the first 300 years of the church, the church was ruled by nicolaitans... so the definition began to change...​

quote ..."I would like to remaind that to claim that the Catholic Church has its roots in such a vile and disgusting sect as the Nicolaites is something utterly ridiculous, especially when one considers the fact that the Catholic Church founded by Jesus condemns the doctrines of the Nicolaites and the Nicolaites themselves.end quote

I find that the RC church,
and the protestant church, can both find elements of the nicolaitans and balaamites doctrine...

Neither has been perfect... extremes and heresies, sins and disgusting events litter the history of both...
Murders, adulteries, indulgences, etc... can be found in both sides...

Jesus started the church... all denominations claim to go back to that start... The church of Ethiopia, never was part of the catholic church, and in format, and style are more like the early church was than most denominations of today...

So, if I were to look at the church today,
and see which denom seems to be most like it,
it would not be the RC church, nor most prot. churches...

The RC church, and most protestant churches have formats, styles, organization, and dogma that far differs from the simple style we find in the most original of the
Didache...

Churches have changed... and I think it would be wise to get back to the kind of church that Jesus started... not protestant, not RC, but 'early church, pre-300 A.D. style..

But obviously, you disagree...
That is your choice..
I have read church history,
I have translated many books of the early church
period, from Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Geez,
and
am most impressed with the kind of church Jesus started...

I do not find one that is perfect...
and in all of them, the human element
has brought shame to the church of Jesus...

We need repentance and revival...
and let Jesus be Head of His church...

whatever church door you enter,
you need to have Jesus enter with you,
and be really a member of His church...​

 

[a_ntv]

... The church of Ethiopia, never was part of the catholic church, and in format, and style are more like the early church was than most denominations of today...

Probably you do not know well the church of Ethipia, that is structured in ministry (hierarchy, bishops/priests/deacons, sacrament of ordination, liturgy, and Eucharist, Mary...everything rejected by protestans) exactly like OO, EO and CC.

In fact Catholic Church consider Ethipic bishops as true bishops and even a form of intercommunion with OOc churches (which include also the Ethipic one) is officially allowed by both parts.

Anyway Ethiopen Chuch was actually founded by syrian giacobites monks in the V century, and so it is son of Costantine empire

If you want to refer to non Costantine churches, you shall look at the armenian and the ACOE, that anyway have the same structure (hierarchy, bishops/priests/deacons, sacrament of ordination, liturgy, and Eucharist, Mary...everything rejected by protestans) exactly like OO, EO and CC.

 

[murjahel]

Probably you do not know well the church of Ethipia, that is structured in ministry (hierarchy, bishops/priests/deacons, sacrament of ordination, liturgy, and Eucharist, Mary...everything rejected by protestans) exactly like OO, EO and CC.

In fact Catholic Church consider Ethipic bishops as true bishops and even a form of intercommunion with OOc churches (which include also the Ethipic one) is officially allowed by both parts.

Anyway Ethiopen Chuch was actually founded by syrian giacobites monks in the V century, and so it is son of Costantine empire

If you want to refer to non Costantine churches, you shall look at the armenian and the ACOE, that anyway have the same structure (hierarchy, bishops/priests/deacons, sacrament of ordination, liturgy, and Eucharist, Mary...everything rejected by protestans) exactly like OO, EO and CC.

nooooo...
you are referring to a different
group...
the true
Ethiopian church was found still in
existence, after having been not
known of in the religious world
till the 18th century...

protestants and catholics sent
'missionaries' to straighten them out
doctrinally...
they sent the catholics home first,
and most of the protestants later...

swhat they saw in each group did not
match what they had in their own faith...

the pride of 'complicated' religion
as we know it, is not the simplistic
and revival church of the early church...

you read a selected history book,
that is missing some vital parts...

the Ethiopic church is not perfect,
neither was the early church...
the early church had ananias and sapphira,
it had nicolaitans, and balaamites,
it had simon magus and cerinthus...

no church is perfect and infallible..
but the simplistic religion of the early church is the goal...
the Ethiopic church that I refer to
is not the branch that
you refer to....

​

 

[a_ntv]

nooooo...​

you are referring to a different
group...
the true
Ethiopian church was found still in
existence, after having been not
known of in the religious world
till the 18th century...​

Umm, the Ethiopen Orthodox Church, (Tewahido), was unchanged since the VI century. It was nor changed by european missionary in XIX century. And this Church had before europeans and have also nowaday: hierarchy, bishops/priests/deacons, sacrament of ordination, liturgy, and Eucharist, Mary...everything rejected by protestans but kept exactly like OO, EO and CC.
Here a link http://www.imperialethiopia.org/religions.htm
Or the official link http://ethiopianorthodox.org/links.htm

This chuch have nice relationship with catholic church in my town (we provide them the church building).

I attended sometime their liturgies (sunday services): they are wonderfull, full of colour and sings and images, with very africal uses (like to be bare foot). But their liturgy is extrimly liturgical, sayd by the three priest toghether hidden back the iconostasis. In the above link there are lots of adress of this church parish in US. You can go attend their sunday liturgies (be carefull...are about 3-4 hours long)
Ethipean Church is part of Oriental Orthodox Churches. You can look at their forum here on CF http://www.christianforums.com/f449-the-voice-in-the-desert-oriental-orthodox.html


If you know of a ancient church of Ethipia that is not the Tawaido one, please give me a link.

 

[murjahel]

Luke in the book of Acts
records that Philip took the message of Jesus
to the Ethiopian eunuch...

Acts 8:26-39

He carried the gospel back to Ethiopia...
and from the palace down, there was a Christian
revival...

in the first 300 years,
synagogues and pagan temples were
converted to Christian churches...

The Great Synagogue of Zion
in Aksum, where the Ark of the Covenant
is said to reside, was even converted
to a church....

The RC church has been asked to leave
a number of times by this church down through
the ages...

While the rest of the world was
struggling with false doctrines
as gnosticism, Roman imperial power,
arianism, paganism mixing with the church,
indulgences, ...
the church of Ethiopia stayed purer..
and kept its Scriptures in its own language...
kept the people able to read and participate...

Their canon had and has 81 books,
their doctrines remained purer...
with all the persecution of the area,
there was less chance of the wicked
joining the church, for the wicked would be
persecuted for their faith, and if it was not real,
then they would have quit...

Surely there are some various groups now
going into the area,
and various 'denominations' (so to speak)
are beginning...

in 480 AD the first of the Roman catholic
church came...
nine monks seeking more freedom
came to the nation...
the larger church, receiving some influence
from these then went into a period of
'darkness' and persecution...
and surviving was the 'in home' and 'hidden'
church, still pure from outside influences...

in the late 12th century,
TekleHaimanot of Etissa confronted some
of the pagan rulers, led some to the Lord,

Protestants and Catholics have been
asked by this simple, more pure church
of Ethiopia to leave... at various times...

This Abyssinian church is called by some
to be primitive, and other things...
and yet, amidst its simplicity is more
pure 'early church' Christianity
than the evolution of denominations we now
have in this world...

​

 

[a_ntv]

This Abyssinian church is called by some

to be primitive, and other things...
and yet, amidst its simplicity is more
pure 'early church' Christianity
than the evolution of denominations we now
have in this world...​

Yes indeed. It is a very old apostolic church

Nevertheless it has: bishops, 7 sacraments, Liturgies, cleric vestmenments, a huge and exagerate (for a catholic point of view) veneration to Mary, monks, and LOTS of other apostolic heritages that were erased in the West by Mr Luther.

I strongly suggest to attend to a sunday liturgy of that church.

 

[murjahel]

Yes indeed. It is a very old apostolic church

Nevertheless it has: bishops, 7 sacraments, Liturgies, cleric vestmenments, a huge and exagerate (for a catholic point of view) veneration to Mary, monks, and LOTS of other apostolic heritages that were erased in the West by Mr Luther.

I strongly suggest to attend to a sunday liturgy of that church.

A 'bishop' is the name they used in the New Testament too,
it is not the 'name' it is that 'clergy' can be respected
and honored for their works sake,
but to put them in the place of Jesus,
and make 'laity' pray to them, or ask them to pray
in your place is wrong...
each person should do their own repenting,
their own asking..

vereration of Mary as a blessed and wonderful person,
is fine...
the problem some have in Mary,
is the non-Chalcedon teaching,
the unity of the two natures into one...
which many misunderstand...

It was in the womb of Mary,
that the 'Word became flesh'
and that did give her a unique role
in God's plan..
yet, it is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross
that they preach salvation, not through Mary...

Many protestants honor Paul in the same
way some honor Mary, and yet some
disparage the honor to Mary and praise
the honor given to Paul..

we should be consistent...

What some call 'monks' in some religions,
we have different names for in other
denominations..
Paul went off for two years alone,
to study the Word, and arrange his thinking
to the way God wanted it...
was he a monk then?

some are called to a ministry of intercession,
and that ministry is similar to the work
of those called 'monks'...

so... 'the wrapping' does not make the package,
it is what is inside the wrapping paper that counts..
...

I like the 'ear pick' symbol,
the blue ribbon about the neck for a time.....
and some other things that have
survived the ages, and have great
typology lessons that more should heed...

their rejection of the simplified canon of the
catholic and protestant churches is commendable...

they could be a bit more evangelical,
but considering that the great persecution,
and poverty of the area made much outreach
to be difficult, and their mission of watching over the
Ark, makes their lesser evangelical nature
a bit more understandable...

the service and its liturgy that you were in,
is not the typical fellowship time of the
'less denominational-ized congregations
of the smaller communities..

I have been in some services
that are like morgues,
and in some ... of the same denomination
that are Spirit filled, anointed, and blessed...



​

 

[a_ntv]

A 'bishop' is the name they used in the New Testament too,​

it is not the 'name' it is that 'clergy' can be respected
and honored for their works sake,
but to put them in the place of Jesus,
and make 'laity' pray to them, or ask them to pray
in your place is wrong...
each person should do their own repenting,
their own asking..​

By first, nor CC, nor EO or OO (that include the Ethipean Church) put any bishop in place of Jesus or have any (supposed by you) nicolaites belive.

Bishops are the higher grade of the sacrament of ordination (one of the 5 sacraments deleted by Luther). Ethipean Church held this sacrament exaclty as CC and EO and OO and ACOE. So Ethipean bishops are true bishops also for Catholics, that have the same exact meaning to such sacrament.

Anyway Ethipean Church pray for the bishops (and once also for the king). Read the original anaporas (Eucharistic Prayers) and you will find that the prayers are like the Coptic or Syrian or Catholic Maronites ones.
Monks in the Ethiopean Church are men, unmarried, that live all their life only for prayer (as in CC, EO, OO).

I suggest you to have a look to the Ethipean Church doctrine: ad instance http://www.ethiovirginmary.org/information/doctrine.htm
You will find:
- the 7 sacraments (the same of catholics)
- holy communion like a sacrifice (as in CC)
- Real Presence (as in CC)
- Confession (as in CC)
- Apostlic succession (that includes the role of bishops) (as in CC)
- Veneration of Mary (as in CC)

That is the historical Church of Ethiopia. Poor, coulored, Spirit Filled but completly Orthodox, and miles away from Luther innovations.

P.S. in the Ethiopean Church you will never find something like: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide....

 

[murjahel]

By first, nor CC, nor EO or OO (that include the Ethipean Church) put any bishop in place of Jesus or have any (supposed by you) nicolaites belive.

Bishops are the higher grade of the sacrament of ordination (one of the 5 sacraments deleted by Luther). Ethipean Church held this sacrament exaclty as CC and EO and OO and ACOE. So Ethipean bishops are true bishops also for Catholics, that have the same exact meaning to such sacrament.

Anyway Ethipean Church pray for the bishops (and once also for the king). Read the original anaporas (Eucharistic Prayers) and you will find that the prayers are like the Coptic or Syrian or Catholic Maronites ones.
Monks in the Ethiopean Church are men, unmarried, that live all their life only for prayer (as in CC, EO, OO).

I suggest you to have a look to the Ethipean Church doctrine: ad instance http://www.ethiovirginmary.org/information/doctrine.htm
You will find:
- the 7 sacraments (the same of catholics)
- holy communion like a sacrifice (as in CC)
- Real Presence (as in CC)
- Confession (as in CC)
- Apostlic succession (that includes the role of bishops) (as in CC)
- Veneration of Mary (as in CC)

That is the historical Church of Ethiopia. Poor, coulored, Spirit Filled but completly Orthodox, and miles away from Luther innovations.

P.S. in the Ethiopean Church you will never find something like: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide....

Nicolaitan doctrine can come to any church, prot or RC, ... it does not depend on whether some are called bishop, priest, minister, pastor, apostle, etc... it is a doctrine of people lording instead of being an example...

How many sacraments is not the problem...

and 'real presence' has nothing to do with nicolaitan doctrine...

I find nicolaitan doctrine to be most prevalent right now in charismatic, shepherding, apostolic churches... so, it is not just a RC problem... in fact less and less is it a problem there...

No matter what other doctrines there are in the church, there can be nicolaitan doctrine...

veneration of Mary, and whether it is deification or reverence for her godly life, is not the debate...

I said that the simplicity, the sticking with many doctrines that most churches have lost is found in the original Ethiopian church... and I still believe that...

you do not know what services I have been in, where or when... the most Bible mentions the 'church of the firstborn'... and that is a different service... if you have ever seen that one... in fact, you should visit that one .. while we are passing invitations to visit somewhere... LOL

 

[Rick Otto]

of all the people...!
Remember me fromyears ago @ JesusAnswers, when M. Bunker was there? Pretty rough crew. I got bounced for not worshipping Mighty Mike.
Glad to see you're hip to the nicolaitane trip.
I was gonna defend you, but I see you already have.

Nice to see someone shares my understanding on it.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

In the nicolatian of time, it seems.

There's an old saying, you can tell who the nicolatians christians are, they are the ones dying of starvation because they keep fasting to make their food stretch among the poor clamouring at their doors.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

The notion that Christ spoke to oppose a church with a priestly class denies the obvious: Christ Himself gave the Law to Moses that established a priestly class. In the New Covenant, all are priests and kings, yet clearly there is a diaconate class, as well as elders (presvyteros and episkopos).

IOW, the nicolaitan= priests dominating the unwashed lay masses is a crock, a fiction created from the mindset of the American libertarian culture- where self and individual are enthroned.

A casual reading of the scriptures reveals that God designed both Israel and the Church with order in mind.

If you want to observe the subjection of laity and cultish leadership at its worst, visit a so-called non-denominational/free fellowship.

The Nicolaitans were those who were given to immorality, as the text clearly states.

 

[Rick Otto]

I forgot to ask you what is clear & what isn't. Sorry.
Glad it's casual for smebody.

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

A casual reading of the scriptures reveals that God designed both Israel and the Church with order in mind.

Is casual reading like casual sex?

"Order" - not theres a loaded term.
Creative God means creative order. In other words, a mess as seen by most people!

If you want to observe the subjection of laity and cultish leadership at its worst, visit a so-called non-denominational/free fellowship.

FLAME ON!