Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who are the nicholitan | Rev 2:6 | DocTrinsograce | 239535 | ||
Hi, Ed... I was also operating from memory. I had to go dig the particulars up from my library to provide the basis of that memory. Here is what I came up with: "...a sect mentioned in (Revelation 2:6, 15) whose deeds were strongly condemned. They may have been identical with those who held the doctrine of Balaam. They seem to have held that it was lawful to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication, in opposition to the decree of the Church rendered in Acts 15:20, 29. The teachers of the Church branded them with a name which expressed their true character. The men who did and taught such things were followers of Balaam (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 1:11). They, like the false prophet of Pethor [Numbers 22:5], united brave words with evil deeds. In a time of persecution, when the eating or not eating of things sacrificed to idols was more than ever a crucial test of faithfulness, they persuaded men more than ever that was a thing indifferent (Revelation 2:13, 14). This was bad enough, but there was a yet worse evil. Mingling themselves in the orgies of idolatrous feasts, they brought the impurities of those feasts into the meetings of the Christian Church. And all this was done, it must be remembered not simply as an indulgence of appetite: but as a part of a system, supported by a 'doctrine,' accompanied by the boast of a prophetic illumination (2 Peter 2:1). It confirms the view which has been taken of their character to find that stress is laid in the first instance on the 'deeds' of the Nicolaitans. To hate those deeds is a sign of life in a Church that otherwise is weak and faithless (Revelation 2:6). To tolerate them is well nigh to forfeit the glory of having been faithful under persecution (Revelation 2:14, 15)." --William Smith, from Smith's Bible Dictionary (1863) After reading that again, it sounds like the libertinism had some syncretism mixed in, too. I must confess, though, that I do not find support for my assertion that the founder of this heresy was a deacon from Jerusalem. I do not know where that memory might have originated. Possibly some paper that I read sometime or another. Yet the memory seems to be linked with something said by a patriarch or apologist in the primitive church. Regardless, I cannot vouch for something that lacks a referenceable basis. Thank you for asking. Going back and checking has been helpful. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Who are the nicholitan | Rev 2:6 | EdB | 239539 | ||
I was taught the heresy of Nicholitan was traceable to the deacon Nicolas chosen in Acts 6:5. But his Heresy was the elevation of clergy over laity and it was his teaching that tried to exalt the hierarchy of the church above the common man or the laity in pews. | ||||||
3 | Who are the nicholitan | Rev 2:6 | DocTrinsograce | 239540 | ||
Dear EdB, Like your professor(s), John Gill makes the association with the Nicolas from Acts 6:5: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/acts-6-5.html He goes into a little bit more detail here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/revelation-2-6.html So I poked around a bit more: Eusebius in his Church History connects Nicolas of Acts 6:5 with the heresy, which he says was libertinism. I also checked Clement, who says the heresy had to do with some kind of self inflicted abuse of the body. On the other hand, Irenaeus seems to think it was an early form of Gnosticism. Tertullian wrote of them as promulgating Christian-Pagan syncretism. Not a whole lot of help there. Robert Jamieson wrote, "The name, like other names, Egypt, Babylon, Sodom, is symbolic. Compare Revelation 2:14, 2:15, which shows the true sense of Nicolaitanes; they are not a sect, but professing Christians who, like Balaam of old. tried to introduce into the Church a false freedom, that is, licentiousness; this was a reaction in the opposite direction from Judaism, the first danger to the Church combated in the council of Jerusalem, and by Paul in the Epistle to Galatians. These symbolical Nicolaitanes, or followers of Balaam, abused Paul's doctrine of the grace of God into a plea for lasciviousness (2 Peter 2:15, 16, 19; Jude 1:4, 11, who both describe the same sort of seducers as followers of Balaam). The difficulty that they should appropriate a name branded with infamy in Scripture is met by Trench: The Antinomian Gnostics were so opposed to John as a Judaizing apostle that they would assume as a name of chiefest honor one which John branded with dishonor." Maybe what I remember is from something in all of that. It would be interesting if you could recall on what basis your professor(s) gave for the teaching itself. In Him, Doc |
||||||