Ancient Christian Witness

Another post salvaged from HCR's Theo board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seal
Does anyone have any ideal of what the Nicolaitan error was
Christ hated? Please give your information and but preferably not all links (BC
). I think it should be a good discussion...Grace and Peace,seal

It's good to see you back in the theo boards.



Quote:
"The Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicholas who was one of the Seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. The Nicolaitans lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these persons is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John. It shows that they teach that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultry and to eat things sacrificed to idols."

Irenaeus 180 A.D.




Quote:
"I do not aim at destroying the happiness of sanctity as do certain Nicolaitans in their maintenance of lust and luxury."

Tertullian 207 a.D.



Quote:
"Nicolas has been a cause of the widespread combination of these wicked men. He was appointed by the Apostles as one of the seven for the diaconate. However, he departed from correct doctrine and was in the habit of inculcating indifference as to both life and food. And when his disciples continued to insult the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as being fornicators and partakers of food offered to idols."

Hippolytus 225 A.D.



Quote:
"Christians do not eat the food that is consecrated to idols, for they are pure."

Aristides 125 A.D.




Quote:
"The apostle concludes from the fact that "an idol is nothing in the World" that it is injurious to use things offered to idols. And he shows to those who have ears to hear on such subjects that he who partakes of things offered to idols is worse than a murderer. For such a person destroys his own brethern, for whom Christ died....It has been clearly shown that we are forbidden to take part in these festivals, when we know the difference between the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

Origen 248 A.D.




Quote:
"Abstain from things offered to idols, for they offer them in honor of demons."


Apostolic Constitutions (compiled around 390 A.D.)



King Neb's responce to me:

"I think Jnorm's defense is disputable. A better way is to keep things in the text and be content with going no further than the text. Based on the overall theme of Revelation (battle of covenants) and the parallels to the teaching of Balaam and all that entails, i think the best answer is Judaizers."



Seal's responce to me:

Yo,Good stuff Jnorm.... Glad to be back on the Theo boards. I'm a bit rusty b/c I'm getting fat and stuff due to the my wife eating more and me eating with here...LOL...


Anywho, what about Nicolaitans believing in a ONE MAN Authority over the Church.... Elders/Pastors being superior to those of the congregation instead of fellow brotherhood... This is one of the main reasons they were hated by Christ.

Matthew 23:8-11

"Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even
Christ; and all ye are brethren .... Neither be ye called masters: for one is
your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your
servant,"

Proof:
In the book of the revelation of Jesus Christ, it is both "the deeds" and "the doctrine" of those in the two "churches" specified (Revelation 2:6, 15). The Lord demands repentance on the part of those who hold and practice these things and He threatens drastic punishment if they do not obey Him: "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth," (Revelation 2:16).

Quote:
The name, Nicolaitanes, is a compound word
which is composed of three Greek words, and which, because of being a proper
noun, is transferred instead of being translated into English. As thus
transferred, it is subject to the laws of Greek construction in regard to
ellipsis, contraction and phonetics.

The Greek words used in its construction are first: "Nikos," of which we use the English equivalents instead of the Greek letters, as we shall also of the other two. Nikos is defined as "a conquest; victory; triumph; the conquered; and by implication, dominancy over the defeated." Another transferred name in which this term is used is "Nicopolis," i.e., Niko - conquest; polis city. Hence, the city of conquest, or city of victory. Also "Andro" -- "nikos;" a man of conquest, of victory

The second term used in the name under consideration is "laos," -- people, another use of which is Nicolas, which is transferred and is composed of Nikoslaos and means one who is "victorious over the people," the letter "s" being, in both words, the nominative case ending, which is retained only at the end of the word to denote the case, while "a" short and "o" short are contracted into "a" long.

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/nicoltn.html


So many people over look this important tenet of Church Government and how important it is that people know what form of Government their church holds to. Christ hated the Nicolaitans for this very reason, they exalted a MAN over Christ authority over his own Church. A big no-no and it's scary how many church governments many are in that follow the Nicolaitan error.


Your thoughts Jnorm...Grace and Peace,
seal



My responce to King NEb:

You can't divorce the text from the community of believers. The Bible was meant to be kept, copied, and read by the church.

To ignore the body of believers is to live in a fantasy land.

You will end up with the same problem that the higher critics have. Everyman will come up with their own theory of what they think it means, instead of submitting to what it actually means.

All you are doing is reconstructing history and changing it according to what you think is right........the higher critics do the samething.



Revelations 25

'Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds
you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out
of its place--unless you repent. 6'Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds
of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7'He who has an ear, let him hear what
the Spirit says to the churches To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the
tree of life which is in the Paradise of God.'

This doesn't tell us what the error was.


Revelation 2:14-16

14'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who
hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block
before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts
of immorality.

15'So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the
Nicolaitans. 16'Therefore repent; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will
make war against them with the sword of My mouth

This text tells us what the errors were. It was eating meat sacrificed to idols and acts of immorality.

This was the samething the early christians were saying! The Nicolaitans were still around for some time after the book of Rev was written.

Do you think all the Nicolaitans died before Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote what they said? do you think they stopped existing once the book of Revelations was written? Do you think they vanished from the earth once Saint John died?


I refuse to live in fantasy land.


Quote:
"Nicolas has been a cause of the widespread combination of these wicked men. He was appointed by the Apostles as one of the seven for the diaconate. However, he departed from correct doctrine and was in the habit of inculcating indifference as to both life and food. And when his disciples continued to insult the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as being fornicators and partakers of food offered to idols."

Hippolytus 225 A.D


This is saying the samething Revelations 2:14 is saying.


Quote:
"The Nicolaitans are the followers of that Nicholas who was one of the Seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. The Nicolaitans lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these persons is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John. It shows that they teach that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultry and to eat things sacrificed to idols."


Irenaeus 180 A.D.



He said the samething Revelations 2:14 was saying.






My responce to SEAL:


That understanding doesn't come from the Bible itself nor the church fathers.

It is something patched together. However, From the account of the Church fathers .....Nicolas was a real person, and his followers were called "Nicolaitans".

Lutherians are called Lutherians because of Martin Luther. Nestorians are called Nestorian because of Nestorius. Arminians are called Arminians because of Arminius. Novationists are called Novationists because of Novation.

Calvinists are called Calvinists because of Calvin( I know many on the board will disagree with this because they never read anything from John Calvin.....but that doesn't let any off the hook for you were influenced by someone who was a Calvinist....wether R.C. Sproul, Piper, Clark, Van-Til, Charles Hodge, Spergion, J. I Packer, Grudem, Jay Adams, John Knox, Beza, Hoeksema, Feral, Johnathon Edwards.......and it goes back all the way to John Calvin. How many Arminians read the works of Arminus? Not too many!!! So it doesn't matter if you never read the works of John Calvin)


We all know names have meaning, but all you were doing was breaking up a persons name in greek......well the name of his followers in greek.


I already know that Prespyterians don't like the Episcopal system of Church government. When I tried to join a PCA church back in 2001, I read in the folder of new members class(that might not be the right name, but it was for those who were seeking to join the church) that "ignatius" was an anti-christ.

Now they called him that because they thought he was the one who started the episcopal system of government.

I dissagree with them, but that is what I saw in the new members handbook.


I never joined the PCA. I told the elder who was over it that I changed my mind. (because I was dumped by the girl I was going to marry)

This is the PCA church I tried to join back in 2001

http://eastwoodchurch.org/content/index.php

They are good people. I like them alot. I learned alot about Calvinism from that experience(from 2000 to 2001). The PCA's at this church are mostly into Jay Adams.

Alot of my college friends still go there.

Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyna and Jesus only had good things to say about them so I doubt if the error of the "Nicolaitans" had anything to do with "Episcopal" Church Government. Especially when Rev 2:15 tells us what their errors were. .....not to mention the confirmation by christians who lived shortly after the death of the Apostle John.





KING NEB's responce to me:


Fantasy land?

Norm, the only fantasies going on here is you implying that there is ONE official answer on this issue from the ECFs and that the words of the ECFs are infallible. It’s also a fantasy to say I ignore the community of believers.

Let me make this as simple as possible. I make a distinction between the “word of God” and the words of the ECFs. Do you?

Regarding the Bible, I don’t ever go into it questioning whether it is true or not. It is true. I know it is true. I believe it is true. I don’t question that. What I question is, “what does it all mean?” That is the work of exegesis. Understood?

Not the same with the ECFs. Not only do I go in questioning what they mean, but I also question whether what they say is true or not. The words of the ECFs are not canon. They are not the word of God. ECFs make mistakes. ECFs can do bad exegesis. Understood?

And all works of the ECF are to be judged by the Word of God. The Word of God takes precedence. Furthermore, truth is not determined by a majority voice. That is a logical fallacy. I know you don’t like logic, but that’s not my problem. Truth is God’s Word – pure and simple.

Also, I reject your idea that we can just make the Bible say whatever we want. No we can’t. Logic places boundaries on what we deduce from the propositions. But again, I know you don’t like logic, but that’s not my problem.

You can’t make “he was buried” mean “he had his hair cut.” Logic dictates that you can’t. You may believe the Bible is that ambiguous, I don’t. You create a Fantasy Land by rejecting logic.

Now, concerning the Nicolaitans specifically. I don’t deny that part of their error was eating idol food and committing immorality. I never questioned that. That’s what the Bible says so that’s what it was. What I question is your portrayal that the group John is talking about had something to do with the Nicholas in Acts 6.

YOU are living in a fantasy if you think there are no disputes over the question of who started the group.


From McClintock and Strong:

A sect of Nicolaitans is mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 15; and it has been
questioned whether this Nicolas was connected with them, and, if so, how
closely. The Nicolaitans themselves, at least as early as the time of Irenaeus
(Contr. Her. 1:26, § 3), seem to have claimed him as their founder.

Epiphanius, an inaccurate writer, relates (Adv. Hear. 1:2, § 25, p. 76)
some details of the life of Nicolas the deacon, and describes him as gradually
sinking into the grossest impurity, and becoming the originator of the
Nicolaitans and other immoral sects. Stephen Gobar (Photii Biblioth. 232, p.
291, ed. 1824) states — and the statement is corroborated by the recently
discovered Philosophumena, bk. vii, § 36) .

— that Hippolytus agreed with Epiphanius in his unfavorable view of
Nicolas. The same account was believed, at least to some extent, by Jerome (Ep.
147, vol. i, p. 1082, ed. Vallars, etc.) and other writers in the 4th century.
But it is irreconcilable with the traditionary account of the character of
Nicolas, given by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii 4, p. 187, Sylb. and apud
Euseb. H. E. 3:29; see also Hammond, Annot. ol Rev. 2:4), an earlier and more
discriminating writer than Epiphanius. He states that Nicolas led a chaste life,
and brought up his children in purity; that on a certain occasion, having been
sharply reproved by the apostles as a jealous husband, he repelled the charge by
offering to allow his wife to become the wife of any other person, and that he
was in the habit of repeating a saying which is ascribed to the apostle Matthias
also that it is our duty to fight against the flesh and to abuse (paracrh~sqai)
it.

His words were perversely interpreted by the Nicolaitans as an authority
for their immoral practices. Theodoret (Haeret. ‘ab. 3:1), in his account of the
sect, repeats the foregoing statement of Clement, and charges the Nicolaitans
with false dealing in borrowing the name of the deacon. Ignatius, who was
contemporary with Nicolas, is said by Stephen Gobar to have given the same
account as Clement, Eusebius, and Theodoret, touching the personal claracter of
Nicolas. Among modern critics Coteleriu:, in a note on Constit. Apost. 6:8,
after reciting the various authorities, seems to lean towards the favorable view
of the character of Nicolas. Professor Burton (Lectures on Ecclesiastical
History, lect. 12, p. 364, ed. 1833) is of opinion that the origin of the term
Nicolaitans is uncertain, and that ‘though Nicolas the deacon has been mentioned
as their founder, the evidence is extremely slight which would convict that
person himself of any immoralities.’

Tillemont (H. E. 2:47), possibly influenced by the fact that no honor is
paid to the memory of Nicolas by any branch of the Church, allows perhaps too
much weight to the testimony against him; rejects peremptorily Cassian’s
statement — to which Neander (Planting of the Church, bk. v, p. 390, ed. Bohn)
gives his adhesion — that some other Nicolas was the founder of the sect; and
concludes that if not the actual founder, he was so unfortunate as to give
occasion to the formation of the sect by his indiscreet speaking. Grotius’s
view, as given in a note on Rev. 2:6, is substantially the same as that of
Tillemont.”

There are a number of other commentators on the ECFs who have pointed this out. Norm, are you now going to ignore these “community of believers” and their points and act like there are no problems? And does me acknowledging that there is no clear cut univocal answer from the ECFs now make me a higher critic and history twister? Please.


Norm, show me from the Scriptures that deacon Nicholas started that group.





SEAL's responce to my post:

It was actually from the article that I posted... That's the guy who broke the name down from the Greek. I'm not sure what you're actually intending to deal with up above.

Ignatius eh...Heck I believe them... Espicopal Gov't is overtly Heretical.

(in talking about Ignatius. He quoted a bunch of stuff from Ignatius, much of it didn't have anything to do with the topic at hand)This guy was overtly Catholic with an erroneous premise. And in Episcopal Gov't they create superiors just like Ignatius was promoting above. 100% Unbiblically Certified.

(in responce to what I said about Polycarp)Polycarp had plenty of issues. And it's clear that you consider the Early Church Fathers infallible almost exhorting them amongst the status of scripture.Does anyone else have info on the Nicolaitan error?Grace and Peace,seal



My responce to King Neb:

Quote:
Fantasy land?

Sometimes it seems that way. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. If I did I'm sorry.

Quote:
Norm, the only fantasies going on here is you
implying that there is ONE official answer on this issue from the ECFs and that
the words of the ECFs are infallible. It’s also a fantasy to say I ignore the
community of believers.

I never said there was only "One" official answer on this issue from the ECF's. Quote me where I said that.

I never said that the words of the ECF's were infallible. Please quote me where I said that.

I know you don't ignore Gordan Clark, but you seem to ignore those that either knew an Apostle or knew someone that did.

Quote:
Let me make this as simple as possible. I make a
distinction between the “word of God” and the words of the ECFs. Do you?

You don't like the ECF's. You like Gordan Clark and Aristotelian(pagan) logic.


And yes I make a distinction between the two. I use the fathers as a commentary. I am only dogmatic about an interpretation when most of the fathers...if not all of the fathers agree on a passage of scripture.
I do choose sides when they don't. However, I am tolerant of other interpretations with similar
wieght/strength.

Quote:
Regarding the Bible, I don’t ever go into it
questioning whether it is true or not. It is true. I know it is true. I believe
it is true. I don’t question that. What I question is, “what does it all mean?”
That is the work of exegesis. Understood?

I never said you were like the "higher critic" in "everyway".

Quote:
Not the same with the ECFs. Not only do I go in
questioning what they mean, but I also question whether what they say is true or
not. The words of the ECFs are not canon. They are not the word of God. ECFs
make mistakes. ECFs can do bad exegesis. Understood?

So you are a higher critic when it comes to the ECF's. I'm a moderate to low critic when it comes to the ECF's.

Quote:
And all works of the ECF are to be judged by
the Word of God. The Word of God takes precedence. Furthermore, truth is not
determined by a majority voice. That is a logical fallacy. I know you don’t like
logic, but that’s not my problem. Truth is God’s Word – pure and
simple.

So basically what you are saying is "your own personal judgement of what the bible is saying" is used to judge the works of the ECF's. That's basically what you're saying. You refuse to see that what you are saying is that one's conscience is the infallible authority.

It is your opinion of what the scripture says that seems to be the driving force.

You believe the scriptures are saying that the "Nicolaitans" were most likely "Judaizers"

Uhm, where does the Bible say that? It doesn't say that! You are making the Bible say that. .....just like a puppet master makes a puppet say things.
The Judaizers didn't like eating unclean foods with the gentiles.....so why in the world would they want to eat unclean food sacrificed to idols?
Come on man! I would rather agree with what one of the early christians said about it than that. I mean....at least they were closer to the source.....so if anyone would know.....they would!

Quote:
Also, I reject your idea that we can just
make the Bible say whatever we want. No we can’t. Logic places boundaries on
what we deduce from the propositions. But again, I know you don’t like logic,
but that’s not my problem.

You just did by speculating that the bible tought the "Nicolaitans" were "Judaizers".Anybody can patch things from the Bible together. And when people do it they come up with different conclusions.
Also logic doesn't just deal with "deductions". It deals with Induction as well.
Now you disagree with the theory of "inductive logic", but other people agree with it. So who's to say who's right and who's wrong?

Does the Bible say "Deduction logic is the only form of reason that limits Bible interpretation"?

No! So where are you getting this from? Not scripture!!!You blame me for making the ECF's equal to scripture. Now I know I don't, but I can make a claim that you make "Deductive logic equal to scripture".

I use logic...infact, everybody does. I just know that Logic has it's place.

Quote:
You can’t make “he was buried” mean “he had
his hair cut.” Logic dictates that you can’t. You may believe the Bible is that
ambiguous, I don’t. You create a Fantasy Land by rejecting logic.

Paul doesn't seem to care about your deductive logic.

1 Corinthians 9:8-12

8Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't
the Law say the same thing? 9For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not
muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is
concerned? 10Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for
us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do
so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11If we have sown spiritual seed among
you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12If others have
this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?

Some passages are ambiguous. However, what might be ambiguous to somebody else might be clear to me.Peter did say that "some" things are hard to understand.

2 Peter 3:16

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them
of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to
their own destruction."

I never said "all scripture" was ambiguous. The book of Revelations has some things in it that are hard to understand.

Quote:
Now, concerning the Nicolaitans specifically.
I don’t deny that part of their error was eating idol food and committing
immorality. I never questioned that. That’s what the Bible says so that’s what
it was. What I question is your portrayal that the group John is talking about
had something to do with the Nicholas in Acts 6.

Wether Nicholas had something to do with it directly or indirectly doesn't really matter. Either way the finger is pointed at him.

Quote:
YOU are living in a fantasy if you think there are
no disputes over the question of who started the group.

It depends on the dispute. The idea that the Nicolaitans were "Judaizers" would fit in the area of fantasy.

Why? Because you don't have early christian support for that idea. Now if you did then I wouldn't call it fantasy.

The same is true when it comes to the idea that the Nicolaitans's error was the formation of Episcopal church government. This too is fantasy.

Where is the early christian support for such an idea?
If it lacks early christian support then it's too speculative, and most likely false.

Quote:
From McClintock and Strong:A sect of Nicolaitans
is mentioned in Revelation 2:6, 15; and it has been questioned whether this
Nicolas was connected with them, and, if so, how closely. The Nicolaitans
themselves, at least as early as the time of Irenaeus (Contr. Her. 1:26, § 3),
seem to have claimed him as their founder. Epiphanius, an inaccurate writer,
relates (Adv. Hear. 1:2, § 25, p. 76) some details of the life of Nicolas the
deacon, and describes him as gradually sinking into the grossest impurity, and
becoming the originator of the Nicolaitans and other immoral sects. Stephen
Gobar (Photii Biblioth. 232, p. 291, ed. 1824) states — and the statement is
corroborated by the recently discovered Philosophumena, bk. vii, § 36) . — that
Hippolytus agreed with Epiphanius in his unfavorable view of Nicolas. The same
account was believed, at least to some extent, by Jerome (Ep. 147, vol. i, p.
1082, ed. Vallars, etc.) and other writers in the 4th century. But it is
irreconcilable with the traditionary account of the character of Nicolas, given
by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii 4, p. 187, Sylb. and apud Euseb. H. E.
3:29; see also Hammond, Annot. ol Rev. 2:4), an earlier and more discriminating
writer than Epiphanius. He states that Nicolas led a chaste life, and brought up
his children in purity; that on a certain occasion, having been sharply reproved
by the apostles as a jealous husband, he repelled the charge by offering to
allow his wife to become the wife of any other person, and that he was in the
habit of repeating a saying which is ascribed to the apostle Matthias also that
it is our duty to fight against the flesh and to abuse (paracrh~sqai) it. His
words were perversely interpreted by the Nicolaitans as an authority for their
immoral practices. Theodoret (Haeret. ‘ab. 3:1), in his account of the sect,
repeats the foregoing statement of Clement, and charges the Nicolaitans with
false dealing in borrowing the name of the deacon. Ignatius, who was
contemporary with Nicolas, is said by Stephen Gobar to have given the same
account as Clement, Eusebius, and Theodoret, touching the personal claracter of
Nicolas. Among modern critics Coteleriu:, in a note on Constit. Apost. 6:8,
after reciting the various authorities, seems to lean towards the favorable view
of the character of Nicolas. Professor Burton (Lectures on Ecclesiastical
History, lect. 12, p. 364, ed. 1833) is of opinion that the origin of the term
Nicolaitans is uncertain, and that ‘though Nicolas the deacon has been mentioned
as their founder, the evidence is extremely slight which would convict that
person himself of any immoralities.’ Tillemont (H. E. 2:47), possibly influenced
by the fact that no honor is paid to the memory of Nicolas by any branch of the
Church, allows perhaps too much weight to the testimony against him; rejects
peremptorily Cassian’s statement — to which Neander (Planting of the Church, bk.
v, p. 390, ed. Bohn) gives his adhesion — that some other Nicolas was the
founder of the sect; and concludes that if not the actual founder, he was so
unfortunate as to give occasion to the formation of the sect by his indiscreet
speaking. Grotius’s view, as given in a note on Rev. 2:6, is substantially the
same as that of Tillemont.”

It is true that Clement of Alexandria said those things. I skipped over him on purpose. I don't recall what Ignatius had to say about the issue.. I'll have to re-skim his letters. But Epiphanius said he gradually sinked into impurity. I don't know enough about Epiphanius to know how accurate he was or wasn't. Nor do I know why they believed he wasn't accurate...maybe it's because he believed in something they didn't....who knows. I like Clement but I sided with the others on this issue.


Your view had nothing to do with what Clement of Alexandria had to say about his character, so what's the point?

Quote:
There are a number of other commentators on the
ECFs who have pointed this out. Norm, are you now going to ignore these
“community of believers” and their points and act like there are no problems?
And does me acknowledging that there is no clear cut univocal answer from the
ECFs now make me a higher critic and history twister? Please.

It should be obvious I didn't side with Clement. You don't hold Clement's view. Therefore I don't have to defend why I believe Nicholas was the "direct" founder. However, If I recalled what Ignatius had to say about it then I would side with him since he was a personal disciple of Saint John.....and that carries much weight.

Quote:
Norm, show me from the Scriptures that deacon
Nicholas started that group.

The Bible is quiet about the issue. But when you add what the early community of believers had to say about the issue combined with scripture then the picture would look something like this:

Nicholas of Acts chapter 6 was either

1.)"directly" the founder of the Nicolaitans. As seen by Epiphanius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Jerome.

or

2.) "indirectly" the founder of the Nicolaitans as seen by Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, and Theodoret.


Whatever the case, both sides agree the Nicolaitans of their day saw Nicholas of acts chapter six as their founder.


You came strong on this one Neb. Good stuff! I'll have to reread some of the other fathers about this issue.







My responce to SEAL,

Quote:
It was actually from the article that I posted...
That's the guy who broke the name down from the Greek. I'm not sure what you're
actually intending to deal with up above.

I was dealing with the idea that the "Nicolaitans" were followers of Nicholas.
It's up in the air whether or not Nicholas fell into the error himself or if what he said was miss understood by those who claimed him as their founder.
But what your man did was patch something together. I think it was way out in left field, but that is my perspective.

Quote:
Ignatius eh...Heck I believe them... Espicopal
Gov't is overtly Heretical.

Acts chapter 1

"15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the
disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and
twenty,) 16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which
was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had
obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward
of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out. 19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;
insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to
say, The field of blood. 20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his
habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let
another take."

The word "Bishoprick" is "episkope". It seems Biblical to me.The Apostles were the first Bishops homey!

Quote:
This guy was overtly Catholic with an
erroneous premise. And in Episcopal Gov't they create superiors just like
Ignatius was promoting above. 100% Unbiblically Certified.

I disagree, but your Prespyterian so you have to say that.

Quote:
Polycarp had plenty of issues. And it's clear that
you consider the Early Church Fathers infallible almost exhorting them amongst
the status of scripture.

WOW! I thought Polycarp was a Holy man. What bad thing can you say about him? I mean whatever you say about him you gotta say about the Apostle John because John discipled him

I don't consider the Early Church Fathers infallible. I use them as a commentary. I mean it's only right to use Polycarp as a commentary to Saint John's works because that was his pupil.
Ignatius was another disciple of Saint John, so he should also be used as a commentary to John's works.
It's common sense.

Quote:
Does anyone else have info on the Nicolaitan
error?Grace and Peace,seal

To be honest,
I think you, Neb, and myself pretty much said everything there is to say about the issue.I maybe wrong about that, but what else can someone say?I mean, the Bible doesn't say that much about it so anything one might say .............will be "speculative" at best.




Related links (from phatcat's blog):
Were the Nicolaitans Quasi-Catholic? (On Rev 2:6,14-15)




JNORM888


I belled out after this post. Phatcat and Seal went back and forth after this. I think Phatcat did a very good job on this topic.

SEAL is a new Calvinist. He only been one for about 3 years. King NEb is a full Preterist Calvinist and he is extremely good.. He runs a full pret website as well.