Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Palatka51, Nov 10, 2007.
Who do you think they are and why did Jesus hate their doctrine?
Religious leaders that had an unhealthy view and practice of authority over the "lay" people.
I've seen various contradictory descriptions of the Nicolaitans, but the one common thread seems to be that they were pompous, puffed-up, and hedonistic. Many accounts say they openly ate meats sacrificed to idols (as opposed to just not questioning what was done with the meat) and engaged in orgies.
They used CCM. :saint:
From John Gill:
Rev 2:6 - But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans,.... Though these Christians had left their first love, yet they bore an hatred to the filthy and impure practices of some men, who were called "Nicolaitans"; who committed fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness, and had their wives in common, and also ate things offered to idols; who were so called, as some think (c), from Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven deacons in Act_6:5; though as to Nicolas himself, it is said (d), that he lived with his own lawful married wife, and no other, and that his daughters continued virgins all their days, and his son incorrupt; and that these men, so called, only shrouded themselves under his name, and abused a saying or action of his, or both, to patronize their wicked deeds: he had used to advise παραχρησθαι τη σαρκι, by which he meant a restraining of all carnal and unlawful lusts; but these men interpreted it of an indulgence in them, and so gave themselves up to all uncleanness; and whereas, he having a beautiful wife, and being charged with jealousy, in order to clear himself of it, he brought her forth, and gave free liberty to any person to marry her as would; which indiscreet action of his these men chose to understand as allowing of community of wives. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, that these Nicolaitans were not called so from any man, but from the word נכילה, "Nicolah", "let us eat", which they often used to encourage each other to eat things offered to idols. However this be, it is certain that there were such a set of men, whose deeds were hateful; but neither their principles nor their practices obtained much in this period of time, though they afterwards did; see Rev_2:15. Professors of the Christian religion in general abhorred such impure notions and deeds, as they were by Christ:
which also I hate; all sin is hateful to Christ, being contrary to his nature, to his will, and to his Gospel; and whatever is hateful to him should be to his people; and where grace is, sin will be hateful, both in themselves and others; and men's deeds may be hated when their persons are not; and hatred of sin is taken notice of by Christ, with a commendation,
(c) Vid. Irenaeum adv. Haeres, l. 1. c. 27. & Tertull. de Praescript. Haeret. c. 46, 47. (d) Clement. Alex. Strom. l. 3. p. 436. & Euseb, Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 29.
Could it be that they were a sect that advocated a priestly hierarchy that taught the doctrine of Balaam?
14But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 15So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. 16Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
This is what I was always taught based on their name... "nico" meant something in Latin... and "laitans" dealt with the common people "Laity"
I was taught that these were the founding seeds of the RCC's style of hierarchy... in which other denominations took their sample...
It opposed church autonomy, and placed in it's place a system of hierarchy in which churches answered to bishops, superintendants, popes, cardinals, creeds, and other higher ups....
Just the opposite... they were so power hungry, they told autonomous churches what to believe, how to worship, and anyone that disagreed with them were not Christian.....
Just jokin brother!!!
I really have not done a good study on who they were... I just know what I was taught... and until I study it for myself, I am not going to be dogmatic about it!
(I do think they invented Southern Gospel though raying: :tonofbricks: )
Here it is from Scofield...
From Greek, "nikao", "to conquer," and Greek, "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 the notion of a priestly order, or "clergy," which later divided an equal brotherhood (Mat_23:8) into "priests" and "laity." What in Ephesus was "deeds" (Rev_2:6) had become in Pergamos a "doctrine (Rev_2:15).
Some other commentaries note that the sect got it's name from Nicholas one of the first deacons... which may be why they are seen as power hungry!!! OK... just jokin!
I've searched and searched and have as yet found where it is written that Balaam told Balak to cause Israel to eat meats or to engage in fornication. I know that I've read it years before but can not find it now. Is there any other account than what is found in Numbers?
I think they "resurrect" every now and then. Last time was when they called themselves the "flower people", the "Jesus Freaks", the "Children of God", the "Catacomb church", the "Music with Meaning People", and lately, "The Family".
As "The Family", though, they have denounced flirty fishing and child lust.
From studies I have read before and from a linguistics point of view, I think Tiny Tim is correct in what he is suggesting -- and there is one other interesting thing to think about. The name Nicholas. Coincidence?
I have read what seemed to be good essays and research which say no.
HEY! Just what are you guys implying here?!?!?