Nicolaitanes philosophy of “systematic distortion” and negation of scripture.
- Thread starter just-me
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The teachings of the Nicolaitans are in religious and secular dictionaries. One major tenet of Nicolaitan doctrine is the establishment of church hierarchy dictating that the laity be subject to the “church fathers” as the “overseers” governing their congregations. Another primary element is that they, like the Gnostics and other false teachers, abused the doctrine of grace and tried to introduce antinomianism in its place. (2 Peter 2:15, 19; Jude 1:4)
A look at the actual meaning of the word reveals the substance of their teachings. I found an excellent article describing the hierarchy aspect of the Nicolaitan doctrine by J. H. Allen. And I quote:
“What is the real-world meaning of the word?
The full meaning of the word “Nicolaitans” in its native tongue and in its ecclesiastical setting, is that the bishops and prelates of the Church have gained a triumphal victory or conquest over the LAITON, the laity, until they have been compelled to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men who have become that thing which God hates – ‘Lords over God’s heritage':
“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; NOR AS BEING LORDS OVER THOSE ENTRUSTED TO YOU (‘lords over [God’s] heritage’ in the KJV Bible), but being examples to the flock;” (1Peter 5:1-3).
The evidence of this full meaning is found in all our common school dictionaries, among which we find the following definition of the term “hierarchy: the power of dominion, government by ecclesiastical rulers,” to which the following is introduced in evidence:
“If anyone shall say that there is not in the Catholic Church a hierarchy established by the divine ordination, consisting of bishops, presbyters and ministers, let him be anathema, Council of Trent (translation) XXIII 6.” (Century Dictionary)
In other words, let anyone who has the audacity to say there is not a hierarchy, not a collection of human beings who have been given the power by other men of dominion, as ecclesiastical rulers over churchmen who are declared God’s heritage, let that man be ACCURSED — let death and hell and the devil get him.”
The meaning of the Greek is “rulers of the people” and implies that this was an attempt to divide and make a distinction between the clergy and laity, creating a division in which the clergy exercised rulership over the laity, something like a dictator.
This Nicolaitan error is one of many reasons why the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer (2 Corinthians 3:6; and 6:4; 1 Peter 2:5, and 9; Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 and 20:6) is so important for the believers today as and throughout all of history of Christianity.
Surely you can see how prevalent and disastrous this doctrine is in modern churches and not just historical churches...can't you?
A look at the actual meaning of the word reveals the substance of their teachings. I found an excellent article describing the hierarchy aspect of the Nicolaitan doctrine by J. H. Allen. And I quote:
“What is the real-world meaning of the word?
The full meaning of the word “Nicolaitans” in its native tongue and in its ecclesiastical setting, is that the bishops and prelates of the Church have gained a triumphal victory or conquest over the LAITON, the laity, until they have been compelled to submit to the arbitrary dominion of men who have become that thing which God hates – ‘Lords over God’s heritage':
“The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; NOR AS BEING LORDS OVER THOSE ENTRUSTED TO YOU (‘lords over [God’s] heritage’ in the KJV Bible), but being examples to the flock;” (1Peter 5:1-3).
The evidence of this full meaning is found in all our common school dictionaries, among which we find the following definition of the term “hierarchy: the power of dominion, government by ecclesiastical rulers,” to which the following is introduced in evidence:
“If anyone shall say that there is not in the Catholic Church a hierarchy established by the divine ordination, consisting of bishops, presbyters and ministers, let him be anathema, Council of Trent (translation) XXIII 6.” (Century Dictionary)
In other words, let anyone who has the audacity to say there is not a hierarchy, not a collection of human beings who have been given the power by other men of dominion, as ecclesiastical rulers over churchmen who are declared God’s heritage, let that man be ACCURSED — let death and hell and the devil get him.”
The meaning of the Greek is “rulers of the people” and implies that this was an attempt to divide and make a distinction between the clergy and laity, creating a division in which the clergy exercised rulership over the laity, something like a dictator.
This Nicolaitan error is one of many reasons why the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer (2 Corinthians 3:6; and 6:4; 1 Peter 2:5, and 9; Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 and 20:6) is so important for the believers today as and throughout all of history of Christianity.
Surely you can see how prevalent and disastrous this doctrine is in modern churches and not just historical churches...can't you?
What does Jesus hate?
“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and
he that soweth discord among brethren.”(Proverbs 6:16-19)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Revelation 2:15
“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and
he that soweth discord among brethren.”(Proverbs 6:16-19)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Revelation 2:15
What does Jesus hate?
“I have forsaken mine house, I have left mine heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies. Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest; it crieth out against me: therefore have I hated it.” (Jeremiah 12:7-8)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16
God hates it when His instructions in righteousness are rejected.
“Because of their wickedness which they have committed to provoke me to anger, in that they went to burn incense, and to serve other gods, whom they knew not, neither they, ye, nor your fathers. Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate. (Jeremiah 44:3-4)
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” Romans 1:28-29
God hates the wickedness that is sure to follow when we reject His instructions
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Revelation 2:15
“I have forsaken mine house, I have left mine heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies. Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest; it crieth out against me: therefore have I hated it.” (Jeremiah 12:7-8)
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16
God hates it when His instructions in righteousness are rejected.
“Because of their wickedness which they have committed to provoke me to anger, in that they went to burn incense, and to serve other gods, whom they knew not, neither they, ye, nor your fathers. Howbeit I sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, saying, Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate. (Jeremiah 44:3-4)
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,” Romans 1:28-29
God hates the wickedness that is sure to follow when we reject His instructions
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Revelation 2:15
How does he feel about unbelief of Eph 2:15 that the law with its commandments and regulations has been abolished in the flesh of Christ,
or unbelief of Heb 8:13 that the Mosaic covenant has been made ancient/obsolete?
That is the clear and certain doctrine of the NT word of God.
Physician, heal thyself.
or unbelief of Heb 8:13 that the Mosaic covenant has been made ancient/obsolete?
That is the clear and certain doctrine of the NT word of God.
Physician, heal thyself.
Note the mention of the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2:15) in close association with Balaam (Revelation 2:14). The two names, Nicolaitans and Balaam, have very similar meanings in their respective languages: “Balaam is derived from two Hebrew words, בָּלַע [bālaʿ] (‘he swallows’) and עָם [ʿām] (‘people’). Interestingly, according to the derivative meanings of the names, the two groups troubling this church [Pergamos] were ‘swallowers of the people’ (i.e., the Balaamites) and ‘conquerors of the people’ (i.e., the Nicolaitans).” If the similar meaning of their names is significant and if the fact that they are mentioned in neighboring verses in the letter to Pergamos is intended to show a relationship, then it has been concluded that the immoral impious teachings of the Nicolaitans might be understood in light of the doctrine of Balaam.
Revelation 2:14-15 tells us that those “that hold the doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. 2:14) are evidently identical with those “that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15). According to the best etymology, his name [Balaam], signifies “Destroyer of the people” ( . . . from בֶלַע [ḇelaʿ] and עָם [ʿām] ; and Νικόλαος [Nikolaos] (νικα῀ν τὸν λαόν [nikan ton laon] ) is the Greek version of this name. The Nicolaitans are the Balaamites. The sin of Balaam as committed in the Old Testament is now and has been for centuries, repeated as keeping the doctrine of the Nicolaitans – a tactic of the Adversary to destroy the people of God using the same temptations whereby Balaam had sought to overcome them centuries ago.
The Moabite King Balaak hired Balaam (Numbers 22:5, Deuteronomy 23:4) to curse Israel, which he failed at (Numbers 24:1). A plan was hatched whereas Israel would be lured into sexual relationships with the women of Moab (Numbers 25:1; Numbers 31:16) which would also entice them to worship foreign gods (Numbers 25:2). The key was to be intermarriage with the heathen leading to compromise and idolatrous worship. Peter mentions false teachers who are following the way of Balaam: “These people have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Bil'am Ben-B'or, who loved the wages of doing harm” (2 Peter 2:15). Peter said that using deceitfulness these teachers will exploit the church: “But among the people there were also false prophets, just as there will be false teachers among you. Under false pretenses they will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and thus bring on themselves swift destruction. Many will follow their debaucheries; and because of them, the true Way will be maligned. In their greed they will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their punishment, decreed long ago, is not idle; their destruction is not asleep!” (2 Peter 2:1-5). Peter explains: “…especially those who follow their old natures in lust for filth and who despise authority. Presumptuous and self-willed, these false teachers do not tremble at insulting angelic beings;” (2 Peter 2:10) and “they have eyes always on the lookout for a woman who will commit adultery, eyes that never stop sinning; and they have a heart that has exercised itself in greed; so that they seduce unstable people. What a cursed brood!” (2 Peter 2:14).
This matches the libertine (a person, especially a man, who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, especially in sexual matters) aspect of the Nicolaitans mentioned by the early historical witnesses, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, etc. It is said that Balaam taught Balaak to influence the Israelites “to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality” (Revelation 2:14). How similar this is to the warning given the Gentiles by the Jerusalem council:
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20)
Both passages connect eating meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality.
Revelation 2:14-15 tells us that those “that hold the doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. 2:14) are evidently identical with those “that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:15). According to the best etymology, his name [Balaam], signifies “Destroyer of the people” ( . . . from בֶלַע [ḇelaʿ] and עָם [ʿām] ; and Νικόλαος [Nikolaos] (νικα῀ν τὸν λαόν [nikan ton laon] ) is the Greek version of this name. The Nicolaitans are the Balaamites. The sin of Balaam as committed in the Old Testament is now and has been for centuries, repeated as keeping the doctrine of the Nicolaitans – a tactic of the Adversary to destroy the people of God using the same temptations whereby Balaam had sought to overcome them centuries ago.
The Moabite King Balaak hired Balaam (Numbers 22:5, Deuteronomy 23:4) to curse Israel, which he failed at (Numbers 24:1). A plan was hatched whereas Israel would be lured into sexual relationships with the women of Moab (Numbers 25:1; Numbers 31:16) which would also entice them to worship foreign gods (Numbers 25:2). The key was to be intermarriage with the heathen leading to compromise and idolatrous worship. Peter mentions false teachers who are following the way of Balaam: “These people have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Bil'am Ben-B'or, who loved the wages of doing harm” (2 Peter 2:15). Peter said that using deceitfulness these teachers will exploit the church: “But among the people there were also false prophets, just as there will be false teachers among you. Under false pretenses they will introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and thus bring on themselves swift destruction. Many will follow their debaucheries; and because of them, the true Way will be maligned. In their greed they will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their punishment, decreed long ago, is not idle; their destruction is not asleep!” (2 Peter 2:1-5). Peter explains: “…especially those who follow their old natures in lust for filth and who despise authority. Presumptuous and self-willed, these false teachers do not tremble at insulting angelic beings;” (2 Peter 2:10) and “they have eyes always on the lookout for a woman who will commit adultery, eyes that never stop sinning; and they have a heart that has exercised itself in greed; so that they seduce unstable people. What a cursed brood!” (2 Peter 2:14).
This matches the libertine (a person, especially a man, who behaves without moral principles or a sense of responsibility, especially in sexual matters) aspect of the Nicolaitans mentioned by the early historical witnesses, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, etc. It is said that Balaam taught Balaak to influence the Israelites “to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality” (Revelation 2:14). How similar this is to the warning given the Gentiles by the Jerusalem council:
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20)
Both passages connect eating meat sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality.
One might question that the records in the OT concerning Balaam are also mentioned in the NT church. Is Satan using the same identical tactics to mess up the New Covenant the same way he did the Old Covenant? You would think that if there is a stark difference in the 2 covenants, that his tactics would also be different in order to adjust to the stark difference. He did that with the law, why not with the Covenants?
What does Jesus hate?
“As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but *Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.” (Hosea 9:15)
The rejection of God's Instructions, in His law for Israel, led to offering up of their own children to the god Molech. It was physically then, and now it is both physically by abortion, and spiritually by teaching our children that the law of God no longer applies under the new covenant.
“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Revelation 2:15
“As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but *Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.” (Hosea 9:15)
The rejection of God's Instructions, in His law for Israel, led to offering up of their own children to the god Molech. It was physically then, and now it is both physically by abortion, and spiritually by teaching our children that the law of God no longer applies under the new covenant.
“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Revelation 2:15
The question remains unanswered:
How does he feel about unbelief of Eph 2:15 that the law with its commandments and regulations has been abolished in the flesh of Christ,
or unbelief of Heb 8:13 that the Mosaic covenant has been made ancient/obsolete?
That is the clear and certain doctrine of the NT word of God.
What does Jesus hate?
“I hate, I despise your feast days, (not God's) and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. (Amos 5:21) (Carnal celebrations [“your feasts days”]
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)
Some today like to use Colossians 2:16 to teach that we are to stay away from God's celebrations such as His ordained feasts. I submit another scripture to refute that, because when God says everlasting He certainly doesn't mean until another time.
“The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24:5)
God hates it when His celebrations are rejected and compromised with pagan celebrations introduced by the “Doctrine of Balaam.”
“Bring no more oblations, in vain: incense is an abomination unto me: I cannot suffer your new moons, nor Sabbath, nor solemn days (it is iniquity) nor solemn assemblies. My soul hateth your new moons and your appointed feasts: they are a burden unto me: I am weary to bear them.” (Isaiah 1:13-14)
Jesus hates it when His ordained celebrations are acted out minus faith in Him, and are only by the works of the law which makes His ordinances carnal, and of the flesh rather than Spiritual as He intended.
“This people draweth near unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with the lips, but their heart is far off from me.” (Matthew 15:8)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)
“I hate, I despise your feast days, (not God's) and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. (Amos 5:21) (Carnal celebrations [“your feasts days”]
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)
Some today like to use Colossians 2:16 to teach that we are to stay away from God's celebrations such as His ordained feasts. I submit another scripture to refute that, because when God says everlasting He certainly doesn't mean until another time.
“The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24:5)
God hates it when His celebrations are rejected and compromised with pagan celebrations introduced by the “Doctrine of Balaam.”
“Bring no more oblations, in vain: incense is an abomination unto me: I cannot suffer your new moons, nor Sabbath, nor solemn days (it is iniquity) nor solemn assemblies. My soul hateth your new moons and your appointed feasts: they are a burden unto me: I am weary to bear them.” (Isaiah 1:13-14)
Jesus hates it when His ordained celebrations are acted out minus faith in Him, and are only by the works of the law which makes His ordinances carnal, and of the flesh rather than Spiritual as He intended.
“This people draweth near unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with the lips, but their heart is far off from me.” (Matthew 15:8)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)
You have used this to argue with me more than once, and I've talked with you about it more than once. So asking me again and again is clearly superfluous. This is the last time I will explain the truth to you as in comparison with all scripture, not just part.
Quoting from the first translation into English (1599)
"In abrogating through his flesh the hatred, that is, the Law of commandments which standeth in ordinances, for to make of twain one new man in himself, so making peace,"
Jesus held the enmity of regulations of commands in the commandments. It was namusa (customs) that were the traditions of the Pharisees. Jesus abolished the enmity, not His own Father's instructions. Jesus criticized the hypocritical Pharisees for these things that definitely were not His Father's commandments. Jesus removed the requirement for physical circumcision for the Gentiles. The epitome of the law is (not was) love, mercy, judgment and faith.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23)
Jesus didn't abolish His, or His own Father's instructions. (Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8) If God says He doesn't change, then Jesus doesn't either for they are ONE. Hebrews 13:8 is not in conflict with Hebrews 8:13.
As far as Hebrews 8:13 the context described in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is what is near to disappearing. It's the predisposition of man that breaks the law, not the standard of it. The physical has been replaced by the spiritual, and Paul says the law is spiritual, so that wasn't replaced. (Romans 7:14) If the law were abolished and made void, Paul would never have said it was holy, just and good. He probably wouldn't have mentioned it in its true form at all.
"for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:34b) Old Testament is the atonement for sin, New Testament is putting sin into remission, as in "decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13b)
The conclusion: Therefore by the latter and the new, the first and old is taken away, for it could not be called new if it differed not from the old. And again that same is at length taken away: which is subject to corruption, and therefore imperfect.
Jesus destroyed the sins of the sinner's past, of those who believe. He didn't destroy the name of His father which is defined in the Torah that included the law. If the law were abolished in it's original form, then there would be no standard to necessitate being "born again" according to John 3:7, and the doctrine of the nicolaitanes wouldn't apply. If we cannot identify what Jesus hates, then I would agree that the standard of identification has truly been abolished.
You make it a habit of using scripture to contradict other scriptures.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
First of all, understand this: no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted by an individual on his own;
So that ye first know this, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of anyprivate interpretation:
(2 Peter 1:20) Joining the Scripture and prophecy together enables one to distinguish true from false.
The doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitanes result in the following...................
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; " Romans 1:28
Quoting from the first translation into English (1599)
"In abrogating through his flesh the hatred, that is, the Law of commandments which standeth in ordinances, for to make of twain one new man in himself, so making peace,"
Jesus held the enmity of regulations of commands in the commandments. It was namusa (customs) that were the traditions of the Pharisees. Jesus abolished the enmity, not His own Father's instructions. Jesus criticized the hypocritical Pharisees for these things that definitely were not His Father's commandments. Jesus removed the requirement for physical circumcision for the Gentiles. The epitome of the law is (not was) love, mercy, judgment and faith.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23)
Jesus didn't abolish His, or His own Father's instructions. (Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8) If God says He doesn't change, then Jesus doesn't either for they are ONE. Hebrews 13:8 is not in conflict with Hebrews 8:13.
As far as Hebrews 8:13 the context described in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is what is near to disappearing. It's the predisposition of man that breaks the law, not the standard of it. The physical has been replaced by the spiritual, and Paul says the law is spiritual, so that wasn't replaced. (Romans 7:14) If the law were abolished and made void, Paul would never have said it was holy, just and good. He probably wouldn't have mentioned it in its true form at all.
"for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:34b) Old Testament is the atonement for sin, New Testament is putting sin into remission, as in "decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13b)
The conclusion: Therefore by the latter and the new, the first and old is taken away, for it could not be called new if it differed not from the old. And again that same is at length taken away: which is subject to corruption, and therefore imperfect.
Jesus destroyed the sins of the sinner's past, of those who believe. He didn't destroy the name of His father which is defined in the Torah that included the law. If the law were abolished in it's original form, then there would be no standard to necessitate being "born again" according to John 3:7, and the doctrine of the nicolaitanes wouldn't apply. If we cannot identify what Jesus hates, then I would agree that the standard of identification has truly been abolished.
You make it a habit of using scripture to contradict other scriptures.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
First of all, understand this: no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted by an individual on his own;
So that ye first know this, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of anyprivate interpretation:
(2 Peter 1:20) Joining the Scripture and prophecy together enables one to distinguish true from false.
The doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitanes result in the following...................
"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; " Romans 1:28
What does Jesus hate?
And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord. (Zechariah 8:17)
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 2:37-40)
Without the instructions of how to love God's way, we are forced to invent love according to our perspective which is absent from God's.
(God's instructions of how to exact His love, written in Leviticus 19:11-18, Deuteronomy 6:1-6, Deuteronomy 13:1-3, and Deuteronomy 30:6)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)
And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord. (Zechariah 8:17)
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 2:37-40)
Without the instructions of how to love God's way, we are forced to invent love according to our perspective which is absent from God's.
(God's instructions of how to exact His love, written in Leviticus 19:11-18, Deuteronomy 6:1-6, Deuteronomy 13:1-3, and Deuteronomy 30:6)
So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. (Revelation 2:15)