Works of the Nicolaitans

[arielette]

Does anyone have any knowledge on who the Nicolaitans are and why Christ was against them?

Revelations
[FONT=comic sans ms, arial, helvetica][SIZE=-1]2:6[/SIZE] but this you have, that you do hate the works of the Nicolaitans, that I also hate[/FONT]

Thanks.

 

[jamescarvin]

The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century) reported that they were a splinter group that followed a tradition concerning one of the seventy apostles, named Nicholas. Nicholas supposedly had a very beautiful wife. So when the disciples laid everything at the apostles' feet, the story goes that Nicholas laid down everything that was meaningful to him in this life. This included his beautiful wife.

Unfortunately, this verbal tradition got out of hand. As a result, the Nicolatians turned it into an excuse to have an orgy fest in the name of the apostles. This perverted the true message of the Christian faith and was a scandal. John needed to clarify what the Christians believed by distancing Christianity from this sect calling themselves Nicolatians.

I have heard other theories about this passage. But this is the one that actually has some historical basis, rather than pure theological speculation behind it.

 

[arielette]

I found this quote here:

http://www.momentin.com/revstudy/chap02ephesus.html

It seems to be a pretty useful site.

But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

It is said a man named Nicolas founded the Nicolaitans. He was a proselyte. This means that he was not Jewish by race, but went through the process of becoming a Jew. Nicolas decided that he also wanted to be a Christian. He worked so diligently in the Christian church he became a deacon of the church body. He decided that he liked being a deacon, but he thought that he should be completely in charge of things. He formed the Nicolaitans. Their name was quite appropriate. Its meaning is, to overthrow the laity or take over the church. He developed a religious party where the preachers dressed differently than the members. He began including Babylonian teachings in the doctrine of his church. These included idol worship, sexual rituals, and many others. He added a few opinions of his own as well. They taught separation of spirit and body. This meant the spirit and body are apart from each other. The spirit is pure, but the flesh is evil. What the body does has no effect on the spirit and vice versa.

 

[Benoni]

THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANES​

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6). "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:15).


When the Lord was showing John on Patmos what the seven churches would be like, He commended the church at Ephesus because they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which the Lord also detested. In Pergamos, the third church, these deeds had become accepted doctrine, which the Lord also hated. For whatever reason the Lord chose not to let history record the precise teachings of the Nicolaitanes. He does, however, want us to understand just what this bunch of hooligans is about and therefore He has given us one infallible piece of evidence.

There are three named heresies among the seven churches — the Nicolaitanes, Balaam, and the woman Jezebel. None of these are identified under these names in church history, despite the frantic efforts of historians to tell us that Nicholas and Jezebel were real persons — even going so far as to blacken the good name of Nicholas of Antioch (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5), as the guilty party. It is said by some that Nicholas founded a movement of apostates who had pagan feasts and were most immoral in their behavior. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it first. Naturally this spawned the most bizarre and wanton orgies and other fleshly endeavors as a necessary step on the road to perfection. Thus the historians applied to them the two Old Testament names that symbolized such extravagances: Balaam and Jezebel. Since Balaam corrupted the people of Israel and thus conquered them, it was said that Nicholas did likewise. This group was supposedly forced out of Ephesus and found a place of establishment in Pergamos. But the problem about this belief is that it is not true. There is absolutely no history for it. It is at best tradition, but I view it as mere myth and folklore — a fairy tale!

The names are symbolic of the heresies they represent. When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. What was this thing God hated but man loved and would not stop doing? What are these Nicolaitanes? We’ll understand it when we know what the name means! The word comes from two Greek words: nikao, which means "to rule over or to conquer," and laos, which means "the laity or the people." Put these definitions together and you get a domineering ruling class within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!

In the religious world there are those who are called "clergy" and those who are called "laity." Where do you suppose these titles came from? "Laity, lay person, and layman" are all derivatives from the Greek word laos mentioned above! This is a title that has come to us from religious Babylon! The clergy are called the "reverends," "doctors," "pastors," "teachers," "evangelists," "overseers," "bishops," "ministers," "priests," "superintendents," "leaders," etc. These are often termed "men of the cloth" — men who wear special attire as a matter of identification as "clergy." These are the people who have the power, authority, and lordship! The rest of us poor folks are just "laity."

What were the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes? They were exalting the "clergy" over the "laity"! The clergy class were dominating the laity, the people. The clergy were exalted whereas the laity were abased. The clergy became the authority, they became the fountain of all truth, they had the last word, and the laity were the "dumb sheep" that were instructed to follow and do what they were told. I once read that the saddest thing that happened to the church was when it stopped being a family and became an audience. Most people have missed the point completely; they conceive of the church as a drama wherein they are merely spectators. In this drama the minister is the principle actor, God is his prompter whispering His lines in his ear — should he chance to forget them — and the congregation are the critics who pass their judgment upon the performance when all has been said and done. This can be perceived by the comments of many people to the minister (actor) who has now made his way to the front door to receive the acclamation of the spectators. "Good job, preacher! You really did a good job today. You really let ‘em have it!" Or the comment, "The choir was really beautiful today." The whole idea expressed seems to be that it was a drama; it was a performance, a show, and you express your acceptance and your approval. You are the critic and it is up to you to pass your judgment.

We have here a "caste system" of "clergy" and "laity" which has been clearly and soundly repudiated by the firstborn Son of God! The firstborn Son, the pattern Son, the proto-type of what the life of sonship is all about, said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men hold them in subjection; but it must not be so among you. On the contrary, whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave; and whosoever may desire to take rank among you, let him be your servant: just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve. You are not to be called teacher, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. And you must not be called leaders, for you have one Leader, the Christ. He who is greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whosoever humbles himself shall be raised to honor" (Mat. 20:25-27; 23:8-12, Amplified & Ferrar Fenton). Men love to rule, even though God has called all of us to serve one another. How many churches or groups can we point out today who observe these words of the Lord Jesus? THINK ABOUT IT!
God’s people, since the days of king Saul, have been accustomed to appointing kings, priests, prophets, bishops, pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, overseers, leaders, and rulers of all kinds, to hear the word of the Lord for them, and rule over them by it, instead of hearing and knowing the Lord for themselves. But that old order has since passed away! It has not passed away for those who remain in religious Babylon, but God has established a new and spiritual order for His elect who are in Christ. This new order is not really new, for it is the very same order the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples! It is the order of sonship! And this new order of the spirit of sonship replaces all those substitutes, whether they be bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or anything else. Oh, yes, there are spiritual ministries in the body of Christ! But these spiritual ministries are servants, not leaders or rulers. In this new kingdom day God is making His elect to be sons of the Father with the spiritual ability to HEAR all the Lord would tell us and to KNOW Him by personal experience of His fullness. No longer do His called and chosen ones submit to the lordship of others who can hear and act "for" them, but as brethren in the body of Christ they share the same mind, nature, life, and power and so admonish, encourage, confirm, and bless one another as each joint supplies. ONLY THE HEAD RULES! There is one Head and one Leader, even Christ, who dwells within. These are such simple principles, and so divine, that one would think all men could understand, but the carnal mind never understands!

The word of the Lord is coming forth today! This fresh, new word is not given only to designated apostles, prophets, pastors, or teachers. It is better, rather, to avoid those who claim such titles and offices and turn your spiritual ears to the heavens of God’s Spirit, and hear for yourself what your Father has to say. The word that you receive will then be confirmed by all who are walking in the Spirit and hearing from the Father. How beautiful this is! What safety there is in this order of the Spirit! Father’s anointed word of life, wisdom, power, and authority is radiating out of the Spirit of the Son within us. Let us HEAR HIM and then obediently DO all He tells us to do! Christ alone is the true Head, Lord, and King of all His elect and chosen ones. His faithful and obedient elect are hearing His pure word from His pure mind. And they are fulfilling His word, walking out His righteousness and will out of His holy nature and power. They are worshipping Him in spirit and in truth, as our Lord told us to do, and not after the traditions of the church systems. By these necessary principles of consecration and yieldedness unto the Lord, those called to sonship are becoming a holy, separated people unto the Lord, prepared to serve His holy kingdom purposes in all the earth.
I do not seek to revile, but rather to speak the truth in love as I warn all who seek after life, immortality, and sonship to God to flee from the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolaitanes as you would flee from a poisonous snake or a lion in the jungle. Let us reverently consider together just how this heresy entered in among the Lord’s people. What a flood of light fell upon the world in the ministry of Jesus and His apostles! Then following His ascension, by the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of Christ, the Lord came again in mighty Spirit power to indwell His people. The church was birthed, and gathered from Jew and Gentile alike, a vast multitude into its bosom. The shadows of the law were replaced by the glorious and eternal reality of a living, indwelling Christ. In those few holy years Christ Himself within was the only Head of the church and unity and harmony flowed like a river and the body of Christ was one. There was no government but the government of the Spirit. Love and wisdom shone like the sun from the mind of God. When the human body knows no government but the government of its head, all is order and unity, and there is health and power. So also it was with the body of Christ!
And what glorious days those were! One only has to read the book of Acts to see how much God blessed His people in those days. Mighty signs and wonders were performed as God confirmed His word with signs following. The word of God, anointed by the Holy Spirit, swept the world like a prairie fire. It encircled the mountains and crossed the oceans. It made kings to tremble and tyrants to fear. It was said of those early Christians that they turned the world upside down! So powerful was their message and spirit. In spite of persecution it grew and multiplied, for God dwelt mightily in the midst of His people. The knowledge of the glory of the Lord covered the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Even before the apostles had departed their earthly life, a spirit and system had set in among the saints of the Lord and many people were wearing the Babylonish garment. They were instituting rules and regulations, laying down laws, formulating creeds, observing days, establishing sacraments and ordinances, elevating human government, becoming disciples of Paul, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of many others. The babble had begun and the mysterious man of sin was raising his ugly head. Before too many years had passed men began to set themselves up as "bishops" and "lords" over God’s heritage in place of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jamescarvin]

1. The name Nicholas was a very common name. Given that there was order in the earliest church, I reject the interpretation that John had any disdain for the separation of clergy and laity. It is consistent with the notion of feeding sheep. There needs to be someone who feeds and someone who is fed. Shepherds need flocks to shepherd. These are titles given in the New Testament. While I will admit that they are too often abused, to suggest that there is no such thing as ecclesiastical offices is to ignore key passages that demonstrate that they were given by God.

2. The other quote offers no reference and sounds very speculative. It is undoubtedly a much later source (like by a thousand or more years). Eusebius, being an early fourth century historian, identifies his source as Clement of Alexandria (a third century Christian), in his Stromota. This is the earliest stuff that remains on the subject of the Nicolatians. Anything other than Eusebius is pure speculation.
This is from Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History, book 3, Chapter 29.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Chapter 29. Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.

1. At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following things concerning him.
2. They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit fornication without shame.
3. But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression, 'to abuse the flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord.
4. But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge. So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct.

 

[Benoni]

1. The name Nicholas was a very common name. Given that there was order in the earliest church, I reject the interpretation that John had any disdain for the separation of clergy and laity. It is consistent with the notion of feeding sheep. There needs to be someone who feeds and someone who is fed. Shepherds need flocks to shepherd. These are titles given in the New Testament. While I will admit that they are too often abused, to suggest that there is no such thing as ecclesiastical offices is to ignore key passages that demonstrate that they were given by God.

2. The other quote offers no reference and sounds very speculative. It is undoubtedly a much later source (like by a thousand or more years). Eusebius, being an early fourth century historian, identifies his source as Clement of Alexandria (a third century Christian), in his Stromota. This is the earliest stuff that remains on the subject of the Nicolatians. Anything other than Eusebius is pure speculation.
This is from Eusebius - Ecclesiastical History, book 3, Chapter 29.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Chapter 29. Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.

1. At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following things concerning him.
2. They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit fornication without shame.
3. But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression, 'to abuse the flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord.
4. But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge. So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct.

Why, Jesus is not a good enough shepherd for His flock; there are far too many false shepherds that fleece their flock. Might as well throw the Holy Spirit our seeing we have all these great spiritual examples to follow.


The word pastor means shepherd
NT:4166 poimen (poy-mane'); of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively):
KJV - shepherd, pastor.

I repeat: When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. Only Jesus is my pastor/shepherd; the idea that some man will raise himself to a position to call him self a pastor/shepherd just proves the domineering ruling class in all religions within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!

 

[arielette]

If anyone is interested you can read about Eusebius life here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea

 

[jamescarvin]

Why, Jesus is not a good enough shepherd for His flock; there are far too many false shepherds that fleece their flock. Might as well throw the Holy Spirit our seeing we have all these great spiritual examples to follow.


The word pastor means shepherd
NT:4166 poimen (poy-mane'); of uncertain affinity; a shepherd (literally or figuratively):
KJV - shepherd, pastor.

I repeat: When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. Only Jesus is my pastor/shepherd; the idea that some man will raise himself to a position to call him self a pastor/shepherd just proves the domineering ruling class in all religions within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!

Sure there is plenty of meaning in names. But then, there were plenty of names that couldn't have been more inappropriate. Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:16) is an example. It is Aramaic for "Son of Jesus." But this man was a sorcerer. I would not let the meaning of words override the whole picture or the historical basis for truth and the good stewardship of the Word.

There are two motives for leadership - (1)selfish ambition and power struggles. (2)Calling and responsibility. So sure, you will get a mixture.

Like I said, abuse of power is an issue that I am just as concerned about as anybody else. And I hate to see it. However, other than speculation about a word derivitive there is no basis for the assertion that John meant to address abuse of authority by use of the term Nicolatians at the time he was writing. If he had wanted to do that, then he would more than likely have addressed the whole church, since there were bishops all over the place by the time he wrote. And he could have been very specific about what he was talking about as he had the apostolic authority to do so.

If abuse of authority was only particular to the Ephesians and something John felt led to address as he was writing to seven churches nearby to himself this is an odd thing. He himself was a bishop in Ephesus, where we find his grave site to this day. We know also that Onessimus was a bishop there, from an Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch, who had also served in Antioch, which we know from Eusebius. John died in approximately 105 C.E., about 17 years after writing the Book of Revelation while in exile on Patmos, though the preterists must claim that he wrote much earlier.

Here is a good explanation that I wrote, along with some graphical representations of how power evolved and a separation between clergy and laity developed along with the New Testament priesthood. I recommend reading through the whole course. But the part specific to the basis for leadership and structure begins at http://stmichaelacademy.org/ecc514/1-3.html . (Scroll to the bottom and click next to continue the lesson).

Do we need the Holy Spirit and Jesus to be our Shepherd as laity? You betcha! But when you ask for church without organization, you are not talking about the real church. If the church had been without organization from the start we would not have a Bible, for one thing. There needed to be somebody, a succession of people , in fact, who could verify which texts were actually written by the disciples, and which ones were forgeries, etc.

It took leadership in the church to help clarify who Jesus was. It is amazing how many ideas about this there were floating around from a very early date. Paul was adamant about not preaching another Jesus besides the one he preached. You should be very thankful for authority. It was the authority of the succession of bishops that Irenaeus of Lyons turned to to edify his arguments against the gnostic heresies. Had gnosticism not been cut off by his and their authority, being closely connected to the apostles, Christianity would have become polytheistic.

It was due to authority and organization, (which is part of the ordination of the Spirit) that the apostles were able to have any influence over the people who received their good news from the start. For the majority of the history of the church people have been dependent on clergy to explain the truth. It wasn't until the 16th and 17th century that the laity ever had access to the Bible, and even so, there was no such thing as universal literacy until the 20th-21st Century. The motive for being a teacher (which is another Biblical office necessary for the passing on of the Christian tradition) can be abusive, or not. But that doesn't mean it isn't an office with a real function.

In fact, there were priests. The following diagram explains the relationships.

The outer pink section of the diagram above represents the priesthood of all believers known as the royal priesthood. This includes the laity (laos). The area in blue, represents those called by the Spirit of God to leadership within this priesthood in various capacities.

These were assigned by the laying on of hands by the bishops who were the stewards of the mysteries of salvation assigned by the apostles to oversee (read Timothy).

I am all for the concept of having a direct personal relationship with Jesus Christ by the life of the Holy Spirit. Please understand. I don't negate this in any way by pointing to the leadership roles that not only make sense but are apparent from the Bible and subsequent history.

(Note: I personally created all the graphics above for the college. Please give credit to the college if you copy them.)

 

[Rick Otto]

THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANES​

"But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate" (Rev. 2:6). "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate" (Rev. 2:15).


When the Lord was showing John on Patmos what the seven churches would be like, He commended the church at Ephesus because they hated the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which the Lord also detested. In Pergamos, the third church, these deeds had become accepted doctrine, which the Lord also hated. For whatever reason the Lord chose not to let history record the precise teachings of the Nicolaitanes. He does, however, want us to understand just what this bunch of hooligans is about and therefore He has given us one infallible piece of evidence.

There are three named heresies among the seven churches — the Nicolaitanes, Balaam, and the woman Jezebel. None of these are identified under these names in church history, despite the frantic efforts of historians to tell us that Nicholas and Jezebel were real persons — even going so far as to blacken the good name of Nicholas of Antioch (one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5), as the guilty party. It is said by some that Nicholas founded a movement of apostates who had pagan feasts and were most immoral in their behavior. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it first. Naturally this spawned the most bizarre and wanton orgies and other fleshly endeavors as a necessary step on the road to perfection. Thus the historians applied to them the two Old Testament names that symbolized such extravagances: Balaam and Jezebel. Since Balaam corrupted the people of Israel and thus conquered them, it was said that Nicholas did likewise. This group was supposedly forced out of Ephesus and found a place of establishment in Pergamos. But the problem about this belief is that it is not true. There is absolutely no history for it. It is at best tradition, but I view it as mere myth and folklore — a fairy tale!

The names are symbolic of the heresies they represent. When a name appears in the scriptures its meaning sheds light upon the spiritual reality behind the name. What was this thing God hated but man loved and would not stop doing? What are these Nicolaitanes? We’ll understand it when we know what the name means! The word comes from two Greek words: nikao, which means "to rule over or to conquer," and laos, which means "the laity or the people." Put these definitions together and you get a domineering ruling class within the body of Christ whose main agenda is to get the upper hand, conquer, subordinate, and subdue those who they consider "less gifted," "less knowledgeable," and "less qualified" than themselves!

In the religious world there are those who are called "clergy" and those who are called "laity." Where do you suppose these titles came from? "Laity, lay person, and layman" are all derivatives from the Greek word laos mentioned above! This is a title that has come to us from religious Babylon! The clergy are called the "reverends," "doctors," "pastors," "teachers," "evangelists," "overseers," "bishops," "ministers," "priests," "superintendents," "leaders," etc. These are often termed "men of the cloth" — men who wear special attire as a matter of identification as "clergy." These are the people who have the power, authority, and lordship! The rest of us poor folks are just "laity."

What were the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes? They were exalting the "clergy" over the "laity"! The clergy class were dominating the laity, the people. The clergy were exalted whereas the laity were abased. The clergy became the authority, they became the fountain of all truth, they had the last word, and the laity were the "dumb sheep" that were instructed to follow and do what they were told. I once read that the saddest thing that happened to the church was when it stopped being a family and became an audience. Most people have missed the point completely; they conceive of the church as a drama wherein they are merely spectators. In this drama the minister is the principle actor, God is his prompter whispering His lines in his ear — should he chance to forget them — and the congregation are the critics who pass their judgment upon the performance when all has been said and done. This can be perceived by the comments of many people to the minister (actor) who has now made his way to the front door to receive the acclamation of the spectators. "Good job, preacher! You really did a good job today. You really let ‘em have it!" Or the comment, "The choir was really beautiful today." The whole idea expressed seems to be that it was a drama; it was a performance, a show, and you express your acceptance and your approval. You are the critic and it is up to you to pass your judgment.

We have here a "caste system" of "clergy" and "laity" which has been clearly and soundly repudiated by the firstborn Son of God! The firstborn Son, the pattern Son, the proto-type of what the life of sonship is all about, said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men hold them in subjection; but it must not be so among you. On the contrary, whoever desires to be first among you must be your slave; and whosoever may desire to take rank among you, let him be your servant: just as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve. You are not to be called teacher, for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. And you must not be called leaders, for you have one Leader, the Christ. He who is greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whosoever humbles himself shall be raised to honor" (Mat. 20:25-27; 23:8-12, Amplified & Ferrar Fenton). Men love to rule, even though God has called all of us to serve one another. How many churches or groups can we point out today who observe these words of the Lord Jesus? THINK ABOUT IT!
God’s people, since the days of king Saul, have been accustomed to appointing kings, priests, prophets, bishops, pastors, teachers, elders, deacons, overseers, leaders, and rulers of all kinds, to hear the word of the Lord for them, and rule over them by it, instead of hearing and knowing the Lord for themselves. But that old order has since passed away! It has not passed away for those who remain in religious Babylon, but God has established a new and spiritual order for His elect who are in Christ. This new order is not really new, for it is the very same order the Lord Jesus gave to His disciples! It is the order of sonship! And this new order of the spirit of sonship replaces all those substitutes, whether they be bishops, pastors, priests, elders, or anything else. Oh, yes, there are spiritual ministries in the body of Christ! But these spiritual ministries are servants, not leaders or rulers. In this new kingdom day God is making His elect to be sons of the Father with the spiritual ability to HEAR all the Lord would tell us and to KNOW Him by personal experience of His fullness. No longer do His called and chosen ones submit to the lordship of others who can hear and act "for" them, but as brethren in the body of Christ they share the same mind, nature, life, and power and so admonish, encourage, confirm, and bless one another as each joint supplies. ONLY THE HEAD RULES! There is one Head and one Leader, even Christ, who dwells within. These are such simple principles, and so divine, that one would think all men could understand, but the carnal mind never understands!

The word of the Lord is coming forth today! This fresh, new word is not given only to designated apostles, prophets, pastors, or teachers. It is better, rather, to avoid those who claim such titles and offices and turn your spiritual ears to the heavens of God’s Spirit, and hear for yourself what your Father has to say. The word that you receive will then be confirmed by all who are walking in the Spirit and hearing from the Father. How beautiful this is! What safety there is in this order of the Spirit! Father’s anointed word of life, wisdom, power, and authority is radiating out of the Spirit of the Son within us. Let us HEAR HIM and then obediently DO all He tells us to do! Christ alone is the true Head, Lord, and King of all His elect and chosen ones. His faithful and obedient elect are hearing His pure word from His pure mind. And they are fulfilling His word, walking out His righteousness and will out of His holy nature and power. They are worshipping Him in spirit and in truth, as our Lord told us to do, and not after the traditions of the church systems. By these necessary principles of consecration and yieldedness unto the Lord, those called to sonship are becoming a holy, separated people unto the Lord, prepared to serve His holy kingdom purposes in all the earth.
I do not seek to revile, but rather to speak the truth in love as I warn all who seek after life, immortality, and sonship to God to flee from the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolaitanes as you would flee from a poisonous snake or a lion in the jungle. Let us reverently consider together just how this heresy entered in among the Lord’s people. What a flood of light fell upon the world in the ministry of Jesus and His apostles! Then following His ascension, by the gift of the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of Christ, the Lord came again in mighty Spirit power to indwell His people. The church was birthed, and gathered from Jew and Gentile alike, a vast multitude into its bosom. The shadows of the law were replaced by the glorious and eternal reality of a living, indwelling Christ. In those few holy years Christ Himself within was the only Head of the church and unity and harmony flowed like a river and the body of Christ was one. There was no government but the government of the Spirit. Love and wisdom shone like the sun from the mind of God. When the human body knows no government but the government of its head, all is order and unity, and there is health and power. So also it was with the body of Christ!
And what glorious days those were! One only has to read the book of Acts to see how much God blessed His people in those days. Mighty signs and wonders were performed as God confirmed His word with signs following. The word of God, anointed by the Holy Spirit, swept the world like a prairie fire. It encircled the mountains and crossed the oceans. It made kings to tremble and tyrants to fear. It was said of those early Christians that they turned the world upside down! So powerful was their message and spirit. In spite of persecution it grew and multiplied, for God dwelt mightily in the midst of His people. The knowledge of the glory of the Lord covered the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Even before the apostles had departed their earthly life, a spirit and system had set in among the saints of the Lord and many people were wearing the Babylonish garment. They were instituting rules and regulations, laying down laws, formulating creeds, observing days, establishing sacraments and ordinances, elevating human government, becoming disciples of Paul, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of many others. The babble had begun and the mysterious man of sin was raising his ugly head. Before too many years had passed men began to set themselves up as "bishops" and "lords" over God’s heritage in place of the Holy Spirit.

Excellent post & I fully agree.
Some source citation would be nice.

Most apologists for the clergy/laity division of the body of Christ will cite sources from the proponents of a monopolistic institutional-hierarchy model that favors the centralization of controlling authority onto one human being that can be appointed by the elite who prefer to remain anonymous.
So theological speculation is less prone to vain imagination than historical speculation in that the very language used is less vulnerable to manipulation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Earlier discussions of same:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=28102

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2853744

 

[jamescarvin]

I suppose I should make a clarification. I am not a Roman Catholic. I have nothing to gain by offering an explanation for the logical separation between the sheep and the shepherds of the church. It's a simply matter of organization. Like all organizations it can become domineering and corrupt.

If it were up to me, I might give in to your type of thinking. That way I could just up and start any old church I wanted. But I believe there should be unity in the church, not millions of popes running around starting all their own religions based on their personal interpretation of the Bible.

Maybe you need to review the Bible texts that show where organization was taking place in the early church? To me its hard to miss. And if the Lord hadn't wanted it, it seems to me there would have been some sort of revolt. I see no evidence of any revolt against early authority. You quote is based on raw determination and speculation, not any actual knowledge of John.

But clearly you've made your mind up. So please don't take this as an invitation to debate. I simply want to clarify that I have nothing to gain by pointing to the facts as I see them.

 

[plmarquette]

Nicolaism (also Nicholaism, Nicolationism, or Nicolaitanism) is a Christian heresy whose adherents are called nicolaitans, nicolaitanes, or nicolaites. They are first mentioned (twice) in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. According to Revelation 2, vv. 6 and 15, they were known in the cities of Ephesus and Pergamos around AD 99. The church at Ephesus is commended for "hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" and the church in Pergamos is blamed for "having them who hold their [the Nicolaitans'] doctrines". There is no other first-hand evidence to give us certainty about the nature of this sect.
Several of the early church fathers, including Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret mentioned this group. Irenaeus[1] discusses them but adds nothing to the Apocalypse except that "they lead lives of unrestrained indulgence." Tertullian refers to them, but apparently knows only what is found in St. John[2]. Hippolytus of Rome based his narrative on Irenaeus, though he states that the deacon Nicholas was the author of the heresy and the sect (Philosph., VII, xxvi). Clement of Alexandria[3] exonerates Nicholas, and attributes the doctrine of promiscuity, which the sect claimed to have derived from him, to a malicious distortion of words harmless in themselves. Eusebius (H. E., III, xxix) said that the sect was short-lived.

 

[Drwhat]

Hi arielette,
it's quite simple really the Nicolaitans reprisent the Orthodox Church of today, so you can simply again see that Christ is against where Satan has his throne also.

Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Now here is the command from God to get out of the Babylonian/Nicoliatan/Orthodoxy/Denominational false Church.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people[who are Christ's people? The chosen elect from the many called that's who are The Christ's, christ's], that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues,[What plagues? Why her false doctrines that's what plagues our minds, that's what needs casting out].


God's speed to you as you contemplate if there is asingle scrap of truth in this post. Amen

 

[jamescarvin]

Hi arielette,
it's quite simple really the Nicolaitans reprisent the Orthodox Church of today, so you can simply again see that Christ is against where Satan has his throne also.

Rev 2:13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Now here is the command from God to get out of the Babylonian/Nicoliatan/Orthodoxy/Denominational false Church.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people[who are Christ's people? The chosen elect from the many called that's who are The Christ's, christ's], that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues,[What plagues? Why her false doctrines that's what plagues our minds, that's what needs casting out].


God's speed to you as you contemplate if there is asingle scrap of truth in this post. Amen

This may sound odd, but I actually agree with this post and I am an Orthodox Christian. I have always viewed these passages as meaning that there is a difference between the bride and the spirit and the institutional church which is nothing more than a system.

And for many it does become meaningless, powerless, barren ritual. A form of religion that denies its power. Worse, many identify the various church bodies, Orthodoxy being one of them, as the body of Christ. This is a heresy and there is a hard disagreement on what constitutes the "visible" church. The body of Christ is the remnant that comes out of her.

Spiritually I come out of her as all must do from every denomination. The denomination does not save you. Your life in the Spirit is what matters. Keep your lantern full of oil!

All that said, there is still a place for leadership in the church, including priests, deacons, bishops, and yes, laity, and even for denominations. If you want to interpret Nicolatianism this way, it is eisegetic, but I can certainly appreciate what you mean.

I don't see any passage in the tour of the seven churches that indicates there is some sort of chronological overview of history to be gleaned from these seven historical churches as the Moody School suggests. And neither have I agreed with the summation of them. So I can't agree with that interpretation of Rev. 2, but with respect to Babylon, this is specifically identified as the woman who is drunk with the blood of the saints and that woman is a very abusive church that hates prophets but loves profits.

It is a speculation to go from these seven historic churches in Asia Minor to this image of the persecuting church. However, as prophecy, I can often accept multiple interpretations. The Lord's Word is very powerful. We thus wind up with a both/and rather than an either/or interpretation. I highly doubt that the Nicolations were "clergy" as if this was a bad thing in itself. We have sufficient evidence to suggest that the problem was licentiousness from a number of early fathers, even if they were quoting from one another. We have no interpretation in these same early fathers that suggests the problem was the clergy, which in the days of the apostles, was probably not so much of an issue as it was in subsequent centuries.

But even if the Nicolations weren't clergy, we can still legitimately discover in a prophetic book a prophecy. There is no reason that prophecy has to be connected to past history. It transcends the moment by nature. And in this case, it is nevertheless a statement of fact. Churches do abuse. And we can be sure that God hates such abuse and its deeds.

Now Jesus can be your pastor. But I highly recommend that you get connected to a church. We are to bear one another's burdens and love one another. This is very difficult to do without communityand it is literally impossible to organize church without leadership, so maybe we should go a little easier on those who work in ministry. It's a vocation. Let's pray for them rather than dismiss them. OK?

 

[Rick Otto]

Now Jesus can be your pastor.

Thanks for your permission. Me & Jesus feel a lot better about it.

But I highly recommend that you get connected to a church.

Mind Control is best left to the Holy Spirit. Got Conscience?

We are to bear one another's burdens and love one another.

Agreed.

This is very difficult to do without community and it is literally impossible to organize church without leadership,

It is the definition of community. How much organization does it take to bear another's burden?
James, here's an interesting slant.
Scan the furst half of this page:
http://www.nathan.co.za/doctrine.asp
so maybe we should go a little easier on those who work in ministry. It's a vocation. Let's pray for them rather than dismiss them. OK?

 

[jamescarvin]

Thanks for your permission. Me & Jesus feel a lot better about it.


Mind Control is best left to the Holy Spirit. Got Conscience?

Agreed.

It is the definition of community. How much organization does it take to bear another's burden?
James, here's an interesting slant.
Scan the furst half of this page:
http://www.nathan.co.za/doctrine.asp
so maybe we should go a little easier on those who work in ministry. It's a vocation. Let's pray for them rather than dismiss them. OK?

Are you saying there was no role for bishops, or that Paul was making a mistake? Were Paul and Timothy Nicolatians? I have seen your link. It quotes from Jesus about leadership. That those who wish to lead must serve. This is the proper disposition of a bishop. But not all are bishops in the sense of an office. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Timothy to lay hands on anyone or any use for the term "overseer." And Jesus also was obviously speaking of the spiritual disposition of servanthood among leaders, rather than to dismiss the usage of offices when he said "call no man father." Try to unfather yourself. You know that the office comes with certain responsibilities. Yet, in humility you also understand that the calling is high and that to fulfill it is a matter of service, rather than of lording authority, a point on which we certainly agree.

But there are extremists, who isolate passages like these in their hatred for authority. And so they are forced to deny the relevance of Malachi 4:5-6 so that they can absolutize "call no man father." And they must also dismiss Paul saying "you have many teachers in the Gospel but not many fathers for I have been your father." And they will speak of there being no priesthood yet deny that Peter said we are nation of priests. Well, if so how? You say there are no leadership roles in the church? Then what was the point of the basis for selecting Matthias or of Stephen?

It wasn't merely eldership. There were certain qualities …

"Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom…" (Acts 6:3).

But as to the term "Nico latianism" being an apostolic heresy, related to non-separation of offices, if that was the case Paul would have adhered to it. I can appreciate it on the prophetic level and also appreciate what Rev. William Marrion Branham is saying to some extent, but there is no doubt that this was not the original meaning of the term, but that it referred back to what the early fathers said it did. He is making up history to suite his anti-istitutional frame of mind. His thinking is born of anti-catholicism and anti-orthodoxy, rather than from the love of our Savior.

Beware of this. If you believe the Spirit will speak to you without community and that satan won't try to get his voice into the mix, capitalizing on your weaknesses in the flesh and of mind, you are very vane. The prophets are subject to the prophets for a reason.

No one will argue that leaders should not be servants. But I won't buy your idea that there should be no bishops in the church or that Ignatius was mistaken by asserting the need for people to be united with their bishops and to do nothing outside their leadership or the altar. Was he void of the spirit when he said this, but you are not? He had nothing to gain by making this assertion. He was on his way to be martyred. He viewed order in the church positively. Back in that day it most certainly was very positive. Consider what they were up against. There were thousands of gnostic sects and mystery religions all being started by whoever wanted to profit from them, all containing perversions of the Gospel. We ought to be very thankful for the fidelity of those bishops because we would have a very different Bible right now if they hadn't maintained order and asserted their authority.

Also, if you think about it, there is no difference between the "mind control" that you impose on the church when you insist that they have no authority and exhert your influence on others appealing to their conscience with the hope of disuniting them from institutional religion and the "mind control" that institutional religion itself exercises by taking the opposite view. You are both attempting to exhert influence.

Why not let the Spirit speak directly to individuals rather than speak on forums? I am just helping you follow your logic through to its natural conclusion. If anything anyone would help you with is "mind control" then you need to stop trying to help others with their thinking and let the Spirit of God do that job instead. Spiritual anarchy is exactly what satan wants. It's the old divide and conquer technique which has worked so well for him since the beginning of time.

Me, I am not espousing that ridiculous position. I hold that the body of Christ has a unified message which is expressed corporately and historically. The Holy Spirit does not speak differently to each individual. The Liar does. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and as such speaks the same message to the whole body of Christ.

Meanwhile the wheat and tares are mixed together. So you can argue against it, but it is the Liar Satan, that you will be referring to, who certainly does seek as his first target for destruction the institutional churches. No argument from me there.

So at other times, the flesh, prone to listen to this liar, attempts to take control and assert ideas to and through the body of Christ as an institution, and so the ideal of unity falls short. The result is the tragedy of schizms and controversies. But on those matters where "all were of one mind" the Holy Spirit was speaking to them (Acts 1:4; 2:46; 15:25). But that the institutional churches have fallen into apostasy because the flesh has been weak if the Spirit has been willing, I won't deny. That is why we have apostasy today.

The good overseer, being filled with the Holy Spirit, will seek to restore the people back to their first love and to the truth in all things and will take the whole church back to the hearts of the fathers. Elijah will do this before the great and terrible day of the Lord. If not, the Word of God is untrue.

As to the institutional churches, he will probably have to say "come out of her" in order for this to take place because the flesh will continue to prevail in her, bedecked as she is with her jewels and drunk as she is with the blood of the saints. But to "come out" simply means to understand that the Holy Spirit transcends her limits and failings. It does not mean detach, as if the body of Christ could be divided.

All of this is true, but none of this means that there is no calling for any to shepherd the church. It is the individualist who is out of line with Scripture. Peter was called to feed the lambs of the Lord. We all are. We all hold the keys given to Peter by our profession of Christ by the Spirit, the stones on which the church is built. We all are priests of the living God by this same profession because Christ is alive and he lives in us by the Holy Spirit, who is our life.

We all mediate between God and men by His power. We therefore deny the power that is in each of us when we deny the priestly office. But if we possess this mystery in ourselves, even to the least mature in Christ, then how much more so those who are wise in the Lord and who have been called forth and anointed with the laying on of hands because they have been identified by their spiritual wisdom and grace, (not just numbers of years)? And why should this not be made more effective by expression in an office?

You kick against the goads when you reject them and denegrate them. The body of Christ is not divided. Just as the Christian is called to be "in the word" but not "of the world" so is the Christian also called to be "in the worldly church" but not "of the worldly church." Christ is in her midst. Christ is in her ministers. The matter is somewhat subtle, but you risk throwing out the baby (Christ) with the bath water if you reject the institutional churches and their offices in toto.

When the Lord returns he will be head over an institutional Church that will be without spot or blemish. You ought to get used to the idea. At that time satan will be bound for one thousand years. So we won't suffer from the same problems we do today. That church will have 24 elders leading it, casting down their crowns, because they are rightly disposed in their hearts understanding that every good thing they have is from above and that they are only leaders if they are servants. Yet the Lord Himself does appoint them on these thrones, separating them from the laos as a special class or office. Who will sit at his right hand or his left? That is not for us to decide. But it is still a fact that there will be special places and offices, even as we have them now with all of our problems. That is why Matthias was elected. And that is why Timothy was going about selecting bishops. There is a place for it. It was not a heresy to practice anointing bishops to oversee the people. The only heresy with respect to this is the abuse of authority by them, who were appointed in haste.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin. (1 Timothy 5:21-22)

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=jamescarvin; Are you saying there was no role for bishops, or that Paul was making a mistake?

Briefly, no.

Were Paul and Timothy Nicolatians?

I don't think so. At least neither sported "Father" as religious title.

I have seen your link. It quotes from Jesus about leadership. That those who wish to lead must serve. This is the proper disposition of a bishop.

Serving is leading? That could use some exploration.

But not all are bishops in the sense of an office.

"The sense of an office" I suspect has some variability.

Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Timothy to lay hands on anyone or any use for the term "overseer." And Jesus also was obviously speaking of the spiritual disposition of servanthood among leaders, rather than to dismiss the usage of offices when he said "call no man father." Try to unfather yourself.

And yet those were His very words, weren't they?
Must be that He wasn't speaking of the family, rather of a spiritual brotherhood with only one Father, eh?

You know that the office comes with certain responsibilities. Yet, in humility you also understand that the calling is high and that to fulfill it is a matter of service, rather than of lording authority, a point on which we certainly agree.

We agree that it is so in ideal, but to "serve as leader" can embrace a paradox that is too often difficult to transcend fathfully.

But there are extremists, who isolate passages like these in their hatred for authority.

Hatred for authority,... is that the flip side of authority worship?

And so they are forced to deny the relevance of Malachi 4:5-6 so that they can absolutize "call no man father."

I don't ever see anyone refusing to call their dad "father", but I always see religionists aspiring to titles equal to or synonimous with that. Sounds like a fear manufactured by authoritarians that don't want to lose their grip on people.

And they must also dismiss Paul saying "you have many teachers in the Gospel but not many fathers for I have been your father."

Not dismiss, but keep it real,... keep it in perspective. Paul wasn't bestowing a title on himself. He wasn't demandimg or requesting or even expecting to be addressed with that explicitly forbidden title.

And they will speak of there being no priesthood yet deny that Peter said we are nation of priests.

I have heard of institutional priesthoods that follow levitical or Aaronic models as superceded by the Melchizedek model, but rarely dismissed entirely.

Well, if so how?

Well, we could go there, but you'd be overwhelmed with questions & dismissive of the entirety as too subjective I'm afraid, & my time is limited.

You say there are no leadership roles in the church?

I do? I did? I don't remember saying that. It doesn't ound like something I would say,... I would more probably get into controversy over concepts of leadarship & leadership roles & models.

Then what was the point of the basis for selecting Matthias or of Stephen?

That's arguable, isn't it?

It wasn't merely eldership. There were certain qualities …

No doubt.

"Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom…" (Acts 6:3).

But as to the term "Nico latianism" being an apostolic heresy, related to non-separation of offices, if that was the case Paul would have adhered to it.

That may be a little overwrought. Maybe "hierachical apostacy" instead of "apostolic heresy". I'm thinkin' Paul wasn't as authoritarian as people like to make him out to be.

I can appreciate it on the prophetic level and also appreciate what Rev. William Marrion Branham is saying to some extent, but there is no doubt that this was not the original meaning of the term, but that it referred back to what the early fathers said it did. He is making up history to suite his anti-istitutional frame of mind. His thinking is born of anti-catholicism and anti-orthodoxy, rather than from the love of our Savior.

I can appreciate that. I think there is an identity crisis inextricably enmeshed in a servant-leader model.

Beware of this. If you believe the Spirit will speak to you without community and that satan won't try to get his voice into the mix, capitalizing on your weaknesses in the flesh and of mind, you are very vane. The prophets are subject to the prophets for a reason.

Ok. Likewise, don't think mixing with the herd will protect you from wolves.

No one will argue that leaders should not be servants. But I won't buy your idea that there should be no bishops in the church....

Ok, I'm late for work & that is a red flag.
Saying my idea is that there should be no bishops in the church is a conversation killer.
Imagine your reaction if I said your idea is that we should serve our bishops & call them Father.

You have some interesting things to say & some well thought-out ideas. I was going to try & address your whole post, but time & that red flag statement are my cue to fly.
Maybe later...

 

[in_sorte_diaboli]

Elbow???

 

[icedtea]

I have read it to be those who seperate church people and those above them, making them above the members and leader(s), example of making certain items and palces holy that only priests can access them.

 

[jamescarvin]

Whatever else that may have been said in this thread, I really don't think there could be any greater separation between "laity" (laos = people) and a hierarchy than the sola scriptura mentality that places the apostles above the rest of the church.