The Nicolaitans

[har_habayit]

I just had some thoughts about the Nicolaitans spoken of by the Lord Jesus in the seven letters to the churches of Revelation. I am not sure if we really know who these people were. However, there are some clues.

The Lord Jesus is encouraging the seven churches to be strong in faith, to regain their first love, to overcome. There are common themes that he is looking to encourage the churches with, and there are things he finds fault with in certain churches that are in common.

In his admonition to the Ephesians (2:1-7), he commends the Ephesians for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans. I have always wondered who these people were. Obviously, the Lord commends the Ephesians for hating their works. Not only this, but he says he also hates their works. Nowhere else does Jesus seem to mention hating anything or anyone, but he hates the works of the Nicolaitans. Who were they?

I think some clues can be found in the context of the seven letters as a whole. They are addressed in one of the other letters, which is that to the church of Pergamos (2:12-17). Look at it.

“And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. (NKJV)

Here, it seems that the deeds of the Nicolaitans have a parallel. Their works are compared to that of "Balaam". What did Balaam do in the Old Testament? He acted as a seducer of the sons of Israel.

I have heard that perhaps the Nicolaitans refers to the idea of priests lording it over the Christians, but I don't think that's accurate. "Nico" means victorious and "laitians" perhaps implies laity. I don't know enough to know what the word means in Greek. However, I can see from the context that the Lord hates compromise. He commended the Ephesians for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans. He criticizes the church of Pergamos for having those in the church who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who was a seducer for those who were following the Lord. The Israelites were on their way to the promised land. Balaam's decision was to throw a wrench in their way that ultimately cost many of their lives.

Notice how the text says, "THUS you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans." The very same language is used by the Lord to describe what he is criticizing in both cases. He says that some in that church held to the doctrine of Balaam, and also THUS had those who held to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

Also in context, the Lord criticizes the church of Thyatira in chapter two, verses 18-29, on an issue that seems similar. Take a look.

“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write,

‘These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass: “I know your works, love, service, faith, and your patience; and as for your works, the last are more than the first. Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works."

We definitely see a link here between the work of "Jezebel", which I don't know refers to an actual person or some kind of symbolic entity, with the doctrine of Balaam. The doctrine of Balaam is linked to the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. All three things are probably referring to the same thing.

Also, in the context of the entire book of Revelation, I think these Nicolaitans were libertines. They were demonic seducers in the church who claimed to be just like everyone else, but encouraged other sincere Christians to live for the flesh and compromise with the world, and still claim the name of Jesus and "go to church on Sunday" for lack of better analogy for the time.

Christ tells us repeatedly in Revelation things like, "come out of her, my people, lest you partake in her sins, and share in her plagues." "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he who keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and his shame be exposed." "He who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the abominable, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will have their part in the lake of fire burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Christ is calling His disciples out of the world. He hates the works of the Nicolaitans because they are drawing his sincere disciples away from this orientation and instead in the path of compromise. The Nicolaitans were leading the sincere disciples of the Lord down the very path of the Laodiceans, those to whom the Lord said, "because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth." The Nicolaitans were watering down the sincere disciples and making them of no use.

Ultimately, I believe the Nicolaitans were people who were dominated by the flesh, who were compromised with the world. They had one foot in the church, and one foot (and their heart) in the pagan world around them. They were of no value in the kingdom. In fact, they were leading true disciples away from it. I believe sincere Christians were actually damaged by these people. I see a very close parallel between them and the false Christians spoken of by Jude, those who feast among the true believers without fear, serving only themselves. They have eyes full of adultery and cannot cease from sin. They are wandering stars for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved forever. They are sensual, they don't have the Spirit, they flatter others to gain advantage. They appeal to the lust of the flesh to gain sincere Christians to their side. They speak great swelling words to the sincere Christians and flatter them to gain advantage.

Ultimately, the Nicolaitans, as well as the false Christians described by Jude, are selfish, given over to the flesh, hard hearted, and made to be caught and destroyed. Somehow, they cannot live with themselves without seducing true disciples of the Lord to their depraved double life. They are seducers. Satan is their inspiration. Their damnation will be just because they are seducers of the people of God.

God has mysteriously made room for the fact that Satan was going to sow tares among the wheat. False prophets and false Christians are going to be in the church. I feel like a great commonality of them all is that they appeal to the flesh, whether in a financial or physical sort of way. The Lord said we would know them by their fruits. These people will give themselves away. The heart will always manifest itself in due time, under the right conditions. St. Paul also tells us that after his departure, savage wolves would arrive in the church that would not spare the flock.

So, in context, the Lord Jesus was encouraging these early Christians, and us by extension, to avoid the worldly, double minded practices of those who claimed to be Christians but in fact had their hearts in the world, even though they had one foot in the church. Why are we encouraged to do this? Because the Lord Jesus is coming back soon, and he wants to find a bride that is pure and ready to receive him. He doesn't want the Nicolaitans seducing his betrothed because he is anticipating a marriage supper with her. He has no time, and no motivation to see her writhing around in the mud of the Nicolaitan lifestyle. He is coming for his bride and he is ready and expecting to see her without spot or wrinkle. This is how I see the issue.

 

[oikonomia]

Nicolaitans meaning something like "conquerors of the people" I think means the development of
the Catholic heirarchy and the clerical system and the clergy / laity systen heirarchy. It first was a tendency. It latter developed into a teaching through time.

It went from "the works of the Nicolaitans"(Rev. 2:6) to "the teaching of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:15)

I think tendency of some naturally stronger ones in the soul rising about the common brotherhood developed into a custom.
The priesthood of every believer was limited by the introduction of a meditorial class. This became the clerical heirarchy and latter
in the Reformation the clergy / laity system.

It is not that the church is a libertarian democracy. But each member of the Body of Christ must be a functioning member.
For the Body builds up itself in love.

Out from whom all the Body, being joined together and being knit together through every joint of the rich supply and through the operation in the measure of each one part, causes the growth of the Body unto the building up of itself in love. (Eph. 4:16)

The Lord hates the works and the teaching that limits the universal priesthood of the believers.
The Lord hates that heirarchy should stiffle the supplying of His life by each and every member of His Body.

But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. (Rev. 2:6)

Since a clerical class and clergy / laity is so strongly established in Christiandom, even many in the heirarchy themselves
don't like it that much. The layman become passive because it is expected that professional spiritual people are there
to take care of all the needs of the "laity."

The Body of Christ which is the church can only be built up by each member learning to grow in life and flow out
life as a priest to others.

. . . holding the Head, out from whom all the Body, being richly supplied and knit together by means of the joints and sinews, grows with the growth of God. (See Col. 2:19)

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Google is your friend... We know some of the heresies of the Nicolaitans, named after one of the seven deacons in Acts.

Please don't try to make up ideas when there really is historical information!

A term appearing in the Revelation (2:6, 15) describing members of Christian congregations who held a doctrine that the Lord hated. Irenaeus said that they were followers of Nicolaus of Antioch, a proselyte who was among the seven men chosen to serve the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 6:5), who had forsaken true Christian doctrine; he said they lived in unrestrained indulgence (Against Heresies I; 26:3). Hippolytus confirmed this by noting that Nicolaus left correct doctrine and had the habit of indifference as to what a man ate and as to how he lived (Refutation of Heresies 7:24). The Apostolic Constitutions (6:8) described them as “shameless in uncleanness.” Although Clement of Alexandria defended Nicolaus by insisting that his followers had misunderstood him, he observed that the Nicolaitans abandoned themselves to pleasures like goats in a life of shameless self-indulgence (The Miscellianes 2:20).

Nicolaitans - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

 

[oikonomia]

Google is your friend... We know some of the heresies of the Nicolaitans, named after one of the seven deacons in Acts.

I did not use Google. My initial help in understanding the matter of the Nicolaitans came from "The Orthodoxy of the Church" by Watchman Nee. And my understanding comes from years of personal experience as a Christian in the practical church life seeking normality.

Please don't try to make up ideas when there really is historical information!

Last I heard historically there is only speculation as to who the Nicolaitans could be.

The New Testament communicates things of the Spirit to men of the spirit.
And the very word "Nicolaitans" should tell the spiritually minded something - "conquerors of the people."

The Revelation of Jesus Christ is made known to us "by signs" . . . and He made it known by signs,
I believe one of the signs making known to us Jesus Christ and His work is the "sign" of "the Nicolaitans"
as a force working against not for "the testimony of Jesus". He hated their works.
Finding out what the sign of "the conquerors of the people" means we should love what the Lord Jesus loves
and hate what He hates.

The system we can hate if the Lord hates it.
Like hating the sin yet not the sinner so also we can love those trapped in the system of "the Nicolaitans" yet hate the system.

A term appearing in the Revelation (2:6, 15) describing members of Christian congregations who held a doctrine that the Lord hated.

First some of the congregation had the "works".
Then the works were more solidified and systematized to become "the teaching."

I believe that the history of the christian church through time until the second coming of Christ is
a key to understanding the progression of the condition of the seven churches. We are looking at
the decline, terminal bottom, recovery, and fallen recovery of the church on earth until the second coming of Christ.

The initial church (Ephesus) suffered "the works of the [conquereors of the people]". The church latter became so entrapped
in the world that the church (Pergamos) was in the place where Satan's throne was, the world.

I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; and you hold fast My name and have not denied My faith, even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. (v. 25)

Now Satan tries totally corrupt the church from within rather than persecute to death the church from without.
And part of this stradegy is strengthening the works of the people conquering Christians to the teaching of the same.

Some are so befuddled by this system that they would teach the churching people to rather love the heirarchy rather
than to hate it. I want to be one to love what the Lord Jesus loves and to hate what the Lord Jesus hates.
It means not that I am called to hate dear fellow believers. But the works and the teaching of the Nicolaitans I hate.

It is to be hated because behind it is Satan trying to corrupt the church from within.
I would submit that Diotresphes of John's third letter is an example of a Nicolaitan. For he loved to
be first in the church life there.

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us.
For this reason, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he does, babbling against us with evil words; and not being satisfied with these, neither does he himself receive the brothers, and those intending to do so he forbids and casts out of the church. (3 John 9,10)

He was so bad in natural ambition to rule over others that he even was casting believers out of the local church.
It is impossible for a Christian to put another Christian out of the universal church.

I believe the characteristic of the Nicolatians is displayed in the behavior of this Diotrephes.

Irenaeus said that they were followers of Nicolaus of Antioch, a proselyte who was among the seven men chosen to serve the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 6:5), who had forsaken true Christian doctrine; he said they lived in unrestrained indulgence (Against Heresies I; 26:3).

This does not concern me because others have said this was speculation that there is a connection between Nicolas in Acts 6:5 and the
Nicolaitans of the letters of Christ to the seven churches. But if you want to quote to me Irenaeus so I may see context and how
positive he was about this, go ahead.

Church history is fascinating and useful. I barely have time to get into the unsearchable riches of Christ in the New Testament.
Besides, it could be that Irenaeus as good as a brother as he may have been, was caught in the heirarchy himself to the point
that he could not see it.

Do he may have had motive to define the Nicolaitans by some other matter.

Hippolytus confirmed this by noting that Nicolaus left correct doctrine and had the habit of indifference as to what a man ate and as to how he lived (Refutation of Heresies 7:24). The Apostolic Constitutions (6:8) described them as “shameless in uncleanness.” Although Clement of Alexandria defended Nicolaus by insisting that his followers had misunderstood him, he observed that the Nicolaitans abandoned themselves to pleasures like goats in a life of shameless self-indulgence (The Miscellianes 2:20).

Nicolaitans - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

I am not impressed by your alternative theories.
To sin with "shameless in uncleaness" certainly is indeed a problem in the church.
When this happened in church history it certainly was a problem.

What is avoided in the minds of too many is the problem of the limiting of the function of the members of the Body of Christ
because Satan causes some to conquer the "common" members. Then the Lord has a paralyzed Body. A church in which some
live ungodly in uncleaness is a problem. But a church in which subdued and conquerored "laymen" are made passive pew sitters
expecting a professional meditorial spiritual class rules over them is also a problem.

I'll go with the Nicolaitans (what ever else they also may have done) to be a sign of those who rise above the commong believers.
The Lord hates this. The Lord hates uncleaness in the church too. The former is more a subtle attack of the enemy of the church.
And it is so insidious becauase those in it are blinded by it and may defend it.

But Jesus called them to Him and said, You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant, . . . ( Matt.30:25,26)

Actually the development of conquerors of the laity is not all the fault of the naturally stronger willed believers.
Some of the fault lies with the desire of many Christians to lay back and have a meditorial class paid to function for them.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Never mind actual historical data from people who were there.

 

[oikonomia]

Never mind actual historical data from people who were there.

Not as showy substitute for hearing what the Spirits says to the churches will I ignore
the insight of men living in Christ.

I respect your knowlege of church history.

 

[The Liturgist]

+​

My friend @PsaltiChrysostom is entirely correct: the beliefs of the Nicolaitans are extremely well documented, for their cult survived into at least the late second century. The heresy was taught, and took its name, from Nicolas the Deacon, who was one of the seven deacons ordained in Acts, and in one out of every seven people you are quite likely to get an unpleasant person (in contrast, another deacon, St. Philip the Deacon, not to be confused with St. Philip the Apostle, was quite important and is mentioned in Acts, and of course St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, the first Christian to be killed for preaching the Gospel (also documented in Acts) was also one of the seven deacons. The Armenian Orthodox do something I quite like on his feast day, in that they celebrate it by having the deacons in their churches wear crowns, to symbolize the fact that St. Stephen became the first Christian to win the crown of martyrdom.

This feast is also not overshadowed by Christmas, as happens in the other churches, since the Armenians are the last church to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity (Christmas) at the same time as the Baptism of our Lord (Theophany or Epiphany), on January 6th (on both the Gregorian calendar and, in the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, on the Julian calendar (as all Orthodox churches in Jerusalem use the old calendar, exclusively); all other churches separated the two feasts, and celebrated the nativity on December 25th on the Julian and later in most churches the Gregorian calendar. Of course, very pious Christians from traditional churches such as Anglicanism and Orthodoxy will observe the various feasts that occur in Christmastide, such as those of St. Stephen and of the Holy Innocents, but having the feast occur in what is for them still Advent does make it easier for the Armenians to observe the feast of St. Stephen.

The actual heresy of Nicolaitanism entailed a Gnostic theology influenced by various Gnostic sects which traced back to that of Simon Magus, as well as pre-Christian forms of Gnosticism, and consisted of the sharing of all things between the men who adhered to it, including their wives. So it was not only heretical, but spectacularly immoral, since it regarded wife-swapping, which I believe all Christians should view as a disgusting and debased practice, as sacred, which additionally is an affront to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This is why our Lord made a point of condemning it by name in the Apocalypse (Revelation); indeed it was the only heresy our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ ever mentioned by name.

Of course since that time there have been even more debased heresies, but we can reject them, as well as the desires of some to tolerate sexual immorality in the Christian church, on the basis of our Lord’s condemnation of Nicolaitanism, which was the prototype for these other immoral sects.

*This date was of course not picked, as some people argue, because it coincided with the Saturnalia or the Roman feast of Sol Invictus, but rather because it was nine months from the pre-existing celebration of the Annunciation, on March 25th (which is also the earliest possible date for Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, also known as Easter in English speaking countries), although the fact that separating the two feasts interfered with the Roman pagan religion was an added benefit as far as the Western church was concerned, but it was of little consequence elsewhere.

Specifically the church in the Celtic and Germanic and other outer parts of the Roman Empire in Europe, Georgia, Syria, the Sassanian Empire (modern day Iran and Iraq), India, Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia, was mainly competing against other Pagan religions such as Hinduism and the extinct Mesopotamian, Celtic, Norse and Egyptian pagan religions) as well as Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

And of course, the main rivals of the church throughout the known world in the fourth century and early fifth century were neo-Platonism (which can be regarded as an attempt to save Hellenic paganism, which suffered losses to Christianity for many reasons, including its sheer stupidity, which the neo-Platonists sought to rectify by merging it with Greek philosophy), Manicheanism (a particularly wild form of the Gnostic religion which pretended to be Christian, but also went after Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Hermeticism), and worst of all, Arianism (non-Trinitarianism), which for a time was the official religion of the Roman Empire, from the reign of Constantius until the reign of St. Theodosius (except during the brief rule of Emperor Julian “the Apostate”, who was a neo-Platonic pagan), during which time Christianity once more experienced persecution, this time from heretics rather than pagans.

Also as far as I am aware, the Saturnalia was primarily a Roman practice, and not part of Hellenic paganism, and Sol Invictus was very specific to Roman paganism (Old Roman paganism was originally a distinct religion from the Hellenic paganism, but it was, like most Pagan religions, syncretic, and under the influence of Hellenic culture, the prevailing interpretation of it became one based on Hellenic paganism; this is what would properly be called “Greco-Roman paganism” in the sense that it was the religion in Rome, influenced by Greece; less so the other way around as many Greeks tended to look down on Romans as being culturally inferior.

By the way I expect some of my pious friends might be interested in this thread, specifically I think @dzheremi , @prodromos , @FenderTL5 @jas3 @chevyontheriver and my stalwart friend @MarkRohfrietsch (of course I have many other friends on the forum, but those are the ones who I think might find this subject intriguing).

 

[oikonomia]

My friend @PsaltiChrysostom is entirely correct: the beliefs of the Nicolaitans are extremely well documented, for their cult survived into at least the late second century. The heresy was taught, and took its name, from Nicolas the Deacon, who was one of the seven deacons ordained in Acts, and in one out of every seven people you are quite likely to get an unpleasant person (in contrast, another deacon, St. Philip the Deacon,

I don't think it is unanimous that Nicolas mentioned in Acts is the source of Nicolaitans. I call it a theory.

not to be confused with St. Philip the Apostle, was quite important and is mentioned in Acts, and of course St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, the first Christian to be killed for preaching the Gospel (also documented in Acts) was also one of the seven deacons.

I have noticed that there is no definition of Nicolaitans like this in Revelation. So spiritual insight into the implication of the name
is more persuasive to me.

Now below you are going to raise some red flags about the occult and sexual immorality.
But I notice you rather than realizing ALL reborn Christians are "saints" you assign a special status to
some Christians as "St. Philip" and "St. Stephen". This is not right and reveals you may be under the influence
of the hierarchical attitude which was brought in stratifying common believers into such classes.

Saints are all those who call on the Lord Jesus Christ in every place who is both theirs and ours.
To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, the called saints, with all those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, who is theirs and ours: (1 Cor. 1:2)

Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you for a share of the allotted portion of the saints in the light; (Col. 1:12)

Are you a believer in Christ the Son of God? You are a saint.
Do you call upon the name of the Lord Jesus? You are a saint.
I am a saint. It is not a special status bestowed upon me by a committee.

As Joshua portioned up the rich promised land to the twelve tribes
this unsearchably rich Christ is allotted for the enjoyment of all the believers in the light.

You see how this insidious heirachical thinking had so corrupted the thoughts of common believers.
Some of this has been allowed by passivity. Some has been seized upon long ago by overpowering natural bullying.
So I would teach that the Nicolaitan behavior developed into a teaching about hierarchy among Christian brothers and sisters.

The Lord hates it because it limits the normal function of all the members of His body.
It relegates a special class of professional spiritual people who act as meditorial class.

The actual heresy of Nicolaitanism entailed a Gnostic theology influenced by various Gnostic sects which traced back to that of Simon Magus, as well as pre-Christian forms of Gnosticism, and consisted of the sharing of all things between the men who adhered to it, including their wives.

The sexual immorality corrupting the church in Pergamos is not blamed on the Nicoliatans but on those who
"hold the teaching of Balaam." While this immorality is horrible it is not tied to the Nicoliatans whose
bad influence lay elsewhere.

But I have a few things against you, that you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat idol sacrifices and to commit fornication.

In the same way you also have some who hold in like manner the teaching of the Nicolaitans. (Rev. 2:14,15)

What I read is that Christ rebukes them for tolerating something akin to Balaam's scheme to corrupt God's people with immorality.
And another scheme to "conquer the common people."
That is two distinct yet equally damaging attacks against the church.

It is rather easy to see unbridled lust damages the Christian church.
It is usually not as easy to see fleshly organization and religious heirarchy ruins the Body life of the church.

It is easy for good people to be appalled at sexual lust.
Shutting down the universal priesthood of believers to create a passive class of nonfunctioning disciples is not seen so well as
an insidious spiritual attack against the church as well.

So it was not only heretical, but spectacularly immoral, since it regarded wife-swapping, which I believe all Christians should view as a disgusting and debased practice, as sacred, which additionally is an affront to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This is why our Lord made a point of condemning it by name in the Apocalypse (Revelation); indeed it was the only heresy our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ ever mentioned by name.

You may see what I mean.
Quite much you write about sexual immorality. But the Lord has a distinct similar warning against the
tolerating of the stronger natural believers conquering over others to create a caste system among God's people.
Ie, Assigning "Sainthood" to certain heroes when all the believers are called saints.

Revelation is made known to us by signs (Rev. 1:1). I believe the sign of the Lord's
displeasure with the Nicolaitans has to do with the meaning of the word.
The spiritual family nature of the new testament church was ruined by the concept of clergy / laity or clerical / laity heirarchies.

This does not mean the other extreme of Laodicea is what the Lord wants.
That is no order but everyone one has his own opinion.
The attacks against the church in history came from different sides so men could fall into one error or its opposite.

The church is neither a democracy nor a heirarchy. It is a kingdom of divine life in men growing in love, function, and discerned maturity.

I know your works and your labor and your endurance and that you cannot bear evil men; and you have tried those who call themselves apostles and are not, and have found them to be false; (Rev. 2:2)

The leading shepherds of a local church are first off examples to the flock not lording it over them.

Shepherd the flock of God among you, overseeing not under compulsion but willingly, according to God; not by seeking gain through base means but eagerly; Nor as lording it over your allotments but by becoming patterns of the flock. (1 Pet. 5:2,3)

While there are occasions when someone has the floor for a special burden to be spoken, Paul said
all should prophesy one by one.

For you can all prophesy one by one that all may learn and all may be encouraged. (1 Cor. 14:31)

Today millions of Christians sit passively expecting to speak nothing because professional spiritual people
will do everything for them. The result is some panic if they are asked even to pray or give a short word of
testimony. They are not trained you see? That is the Reverend's job.

We see the danger of the occult creeping into the church.
Many do not see the danger of human organization binding the normal function of the members of the Body.

Anyway as you gave your sources I also first learned of these things by reading
"The Orthodoxy of the Church" by Watchman Nee expounding the seven letters to the seven churches.
They have by Nee and a few others been treated as a prophetic allegorical revelation of church history from the first century
to the Lord's second coming.

Read and Search the Ministry of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee | LSM Online Publications

Read, search, and listen to the entire collections of the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. Bookmark, annotate, and view referenced Scripture reading to assist study of the ministry of these servants of the Lord.

www.ministrybooks.org

 

[FireDragon76]

+​

My friend @PsaltiChrysostom is entirely correct: the beliefs of the Nicolaitans are extremely well documented, for their cult survived into at least the late second century. The heresy was taught, and took its name, from Nicolas the Deacon, who was one of the seven deacons ordained in Acts, and in one out of every seven people you are quite likely to get an unpleasant person (in contrast, another deacon, St. Philip the Deacon, not to be confused with St. Philip the Apostle, was quite important and is mentioned in Acts, and of course St. Stephen the Illustrious Protomartyr, the first Christian to be killed for preaching the Gospel (also documented in Acts) was also one of the seven deacons. The Armenian Orthodox do something I quite like on his feast day, in that they celebrate it by having the deacons in their churches wear crowns, to symbolize the fact that St. Stephen became the first Christian to win the crown of martyrdom.

This feast is also not overshadowed by Christmas, as happens in the other churches, since the Armenians are the last church to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity (Christmas) at the same time as the Baptism of our Lord (Theophany or Epiphany), on January 6th (on both the Gregorian calendar and, in the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, on the Julian calendar (as all Orthodox churches in Jerusalem use the old calendar, exclusively); all other churches separated the two feasts, and celebrated the nativity on December 25th on the Julian and later in most churches the Gregorian calendar. Of course, very pious Christians from traditional churches such as Anglicanism and Orthodoxy will observe the various feasts that occur in Christmastide, such as those of St. Stephen and of the Holy Innocents, but having the feast occur in what is for them still Advent does make it easier for the Armenians to observe the feast of St. Stephen.

The actual heresy of Nicolaitanism entailed a Gnostic theology influenced by various Gnostic sects which traced back to that of Simon Magus, as well as pre-Christian forms of Gnosticism, and consisted of the sharing of all things between the men who adhered to it, including their wives. So it was not only heretical, but spectacularly immoral, since it regarded wife-swapping, which I believe all Christians should view as a disgusting and debased practice, as sacred, which additionally is an affront to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This is why our Lord made a point of condemning it by name in the Apocalypse (Revelation); indeed it was the only heresy our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ ever mentioned by name.

Of course since that time there have been even more debased heresies, but we can reject them, as well as the desires of some to tolerate sexual immorality in the Christian church, on the basis of our Lord’s condemnation of Nicolaitanism, which was the prototype for these other immoral sects.

*This date was of course not picked, as some people argue, because it coincided with the Saturnalia or the Roman feast of Sol Invictus, but rather because it was nine months from the pre-existing celebration of the Annunciation, on March 25th (which is also the earliest possible date for Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, also known as Easter in English speaking countries), although the fact that separating the two feasts interfered with the Roman pagan religion was an added benefit as far as the Western church was concerned, but it was of little consequence elsewhere.

Specifically the church in the Celtic and Germanic and other outer parts of the Roman Empire in Europe, Georgia, Syria, the Sassanian Empire (modern day Iran and Iraq), India, Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia, was mainly competing against other Pagan religions such as Hinduism and the extinct Mesopotamian, Celtic, Norse and Egyptian pagan religions) as well as Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

And of course, the main rivals of the church throughout the known world in the fourth century and early fifth century were neo-Platonism (which can be regarded as an attempt to save Hellenic paganism, which suffered losses to Christianity for many reasons, including its sheer stupidity, which the neo-Platonists sought to rectify by merging it with Greek philosophy), Manicheanism (a particularly wild form of the Gnostic religion which pretended to be Christian, but also went after Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Hermeticism), and worst of all, Arianism (non-Trinitarianism), which for a time was the official religion of the Roman Empire, from the reign of Constantius until the reign of St. Theodosius (except during the brief rule of Emperor Julian “the Apostate”, who was a neo-Platonic pagan), during which time Christianity once more experienced persecution, this time from heretics rather than pagans.

Also as far as I am aware, the Saturnalia was primarily a Roman practice, and not part of Hellenic paganism, and Sol Invictus was very specific to Roman paganism (Old Roman paganism was originally a distinct religion from the Hellenic paganism, but it was, like most Pagan religions, syncretic, and under the influence of Hellenic culture, the prevailing interpretation of it became one based on Hellenic paganism; this is what would properly be called “Greco-Roman paganism” in the sense that it was the religion in Rome, influenced by Greece; less so the other way around as many Greeks tended to look down on Romans as being culturally inferior.

By the way I expect some of my pious friends might be interested in this thread, specifically I think @dzheremi , @prodromos , @FenderTL5 @jas3 @chevyontheriver and my stalwart friend @MarkRohfrietsch (of course I have many other friends on the forum, but those are the ones who I think might find this subject intriguing).

Neo-Platonism wasn't really a rival to Christianity. Many Christians were themselves Neo-Platonists. Neo-Platonism is primarily a metaphysic, not a religion. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysios were more or less all Neo-Platonists to one degree or another. Platonism is also the backdrop for Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, and Jews and Christians were both interacting with those ideas (Philo of Alexandria equates the Logos with hochma or wisdom as a hypostatis of God, and this is taken up by whoever wrote the Johanine corpus).

 

[The Liturgist]

Neo-Platonism wasn't really a rival to Christianity. Many Christians were themselves Neo-Platonists. Neo-Platonism is primarily a metaphysic, not a religion. Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysios were more or less all Neo-Platonists to one degree or another. Platonism is also the backdrop for Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, and Jews and Christians were both interacting with those ideas (Philo of Alexandria equates the Logos with hochma or wisdom as a hypostatis of God, and this is taken up by whoever wrote the Johanine corpus).

You’re confusing the philosophy of Plato and later philosophers in his school with the specific Neo-Platonist religion, which was started by Plotinus in the early third century anno domini, and which was something akin to a hybrid of Gnosticism and Hellenic Paganism. Specifically, it reflects a Gnostic influence on Hellenism.

Now, undeniably, the philsophy of Plato and his successors had a huge influence over the early church, moreso than that of Aristotle, who would become more important in the era of St. Gregory Palamas and also the Scholastics.

However, there is a huge difference between that, and the neo-Platonists, which by did not influence the Gospel of John or the other writings of St. John the Theologian, because as it happens, the Johannine corpus was written well before the third century even according to the far left scholars of the mainline seminaries. It is extremely important to not confuse neo-Platonism with the philosophy of Plato; I somewhat doubt Plato would approve of it or at least like it being associated with his name, although I find Plato at times morally objectionable, here at least I think he would have objected to the association of his name with what was basically a Gnostic-Pagan hybrid (or perhaps a Pagan re-evaluation of Gnosticism, which was a dualist Pagan corruption of Christianity with some relationship to Hellenic appropriations of Persian religion.

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't think it is unanimous that Nicolas mentioned in Acts is the source of Nicolaitans. I call it a theory.

All early church fathers declare it as such, so if you want to call it a theory, fine: it is an extremely successful theory well supported by the evidence.

I suspect you meant to call the idea an “hypothesis” which many people confuse with a theory, but that’s not really applicable. Also there is the crowd who erroneously assert that because a given scientific theory such as General Relativity or Evolution or Quantum Mechanics is “just a theory”, that means it lacks real world implications or experimental corroboration.

 

[The Liturgist]

Anyway as you gave your sources I also first learned of these things by reading
"The Orthodoxy of the Church" by Watchman Nee expounding the seven letters to the seven churches.
They have by Nee and a few others been treated as a prophetic allegorical revelation of church history from the first century
to the Lord's second coming.

I myself reject entirely that Watchman Nee was prophetic. He certainly was not a member of the Orthodox Church, but rather had a background in the Plymouth Brethren movement which gave us such novelties and innovations as premillennial dispensationalism.