Nicolaitan

[prophet]

Would to God that you had this same approach to teaching where God ever told us to lift up one single elder above the others, which is the unbiblical practice that caused all the problem in the first place.

Why did Paul write his pastoral epistles to a specific man and not to a body of elders?

Where does the Holy Scripture call any epistle a "pastoral epistle"?

You won't find the word "pastor" in Tims or Titus.

So you're building doctrine on a nickname?

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Where does the Holy Scripture call any epistle a "pastoral epistle"?

You won't find the word "pastor" in Tims or Titus.

So you're building doctrine on a nickname?

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Why does Paul, in his epistles that deal specifically with the care of the churches, address them to an individual elder instead of a body of elders? 

 

[rsc2a]

You don't think Romans, Ephesians, James, John 1, etc doesn't deal with the care of the church? Odd...

 

[Citadel of Truth]

You don't think Romans, Ephesians, James, John 1, etc doesn't deal with the care of the church? Odd...

You left out my word "specifically." Odd...

 

[rsc2a]

If only your premise wasn't based on a warped definition of church. Your point might actually make sense then. Right now,  not so much.

 

[prophet]

Where does the Holy Scripture call any epistle a "pastoral epistle"?

You won't find the word "pastor" in Tims or Titus.

So you're building doctrine on a nickname?

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Why does Paul, in his epistles that deal specifically with the care of the churches, address them to an individual elder instead of a body of elders?

Again, that would matter, if, prior to those epistles, there was a commandment given to set up a single undershepherd.
But stacking a building block (the epistles addressed to individuals) upon absolutely nothing, does not a foundation lay.

BTW, read through the epistles in question, and note the references to elders.
Every reference that is not plural, has an indefinite article preceding it.
You  won't find the phrase "the bishop", or "the elder", in other words.

The only time "pastors" appears in the NT, in Eph. 4, it is called a gift, not an office, and it is plural.
Also note, that it is part of a subset, and not equal, by punctuation, with the preceeding gifts.  In other words, pastors and teachers is one gift, both a type of teacher.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Where does the Holy Scripture call any epistle a "pastoral epistle"?

You won't find the word "pastor" in Tims or Titus.

So you're building doctrine on a nickname?

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Why does Paul, in his epistles that deal specifically with the care of the churches, address them to an individual elder instead of a body of elders?

Because Timothy and Titus are his friends and church planters? 

He does not say, "I charge you, dear pastor, to teach no other doctrine."  These are not letters to pastors of churches. 

3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge SOME that THEY teach no other doctrine

And he tells Titus to appoint elders in every city.  Elders, not pastors.  And, based on the other epistles, it is safe to assume each city/assembly will have multiple elders. 

4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith: [...] 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you

 

[prophet]

3Jo 1:9-10
9 I wrote unto the church:but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words:and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

Here is the only mention of an elder desiring a position over the other elders....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

By the way...

2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

I think the flock should follow the pastor's example and take weekly turns getting up at "church" and pontificate for an hour each Sunday (uninterrupted, and without any opportunity for the laity or the pastor to comment on what they teach). 

 

[bgwilkinson]

So, if I were to lay charge against one who is lording over the laity, would I be wrong to use the term Nicolaitan?

You could just call him popish. Use it in a disparaging way. It was used to great effect to describe Catholics in the early 16th century.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So, if I were to lay charge against one who is lording over the laity, would I be wrong to use the term Nicolaitan?

You could just call him popish. Use it in a disparaging way. It was used to great effect to describe Catholics in the early 16th century.

Right, which is perfectly fitting for pastors.  After all, what do pastors do?  They pontificate.

pon·tif·i·cate
verb
pänˈtifiˌkāt/
1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, especially at Mass.
2. express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.

And what is a pontiff?

pon·tiff
ˈpän(t)əf/
noun
the pope.

 

[bgwilkinson]

So, if I were to lay charge against one who is lording over the laity, would I be wrong to use the term Nicolaitan?

You could just call him popish. Use it in a disparaging way. It was used to great effect to describe Catholics in the early 16th century.

Right, which is perfectly fitting for pastors.  After all, what do pastors do?  They pontificate.

pon·tif·i·cate
verb
pänˈtifiˌkāt/
1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, especially at Mass.
2. express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.

And what is a pontiff?

pon·tiff
ˈpän(t)əf/
noun
the pope.

Oh that could hurt.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So, if I were to lay charge against one who is lording over the laity, would I be wrong to use the term Nicolaitan?

You could just call him popish. Use it in a disparaging way. It was used to great effect to describe Catholics in the early 16th century.

Right, which is perfectly fitting for pastors.  After all, what do pastors do?  They pontificate.

pon·tif·i·cate
verb
pänˈtifiˌkāt/
1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop, especially at Mass.
2. express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.
Vt
And what is a pontiff?

pon·tiff
ˈpän(t)əf/
noun
the pope.

Oh that could hurt.

You should send it to your Pastor.
Better yet, send Mater over to straighten him out.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Better yet, send Mater over to straighten him out.

Wouldn't work.  I'm part of the puny laity.  We have no standing to correct a man o' God. 

And I am only half-joking.  My few attempts to inform pastors (at least 3 pastors) of alternative interpretations of scripture were entirely discarded without discussion or consideration.  Without exception, the pastors were visibly annoyed that someone would be bold enough to offer an interpretation other than his.  If that isn't popish, I don't know what is.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I see little to no doubt that the Nicolaitans conquered the laity.  This is, after all, the definition of the word.  It does seem to be named after a leader who must have been dogmatic, or, what we would call today, cultish.  What they conquered the laity with and how they conquered seems to be the question.

Could we fairly argue that ANY exercise to rule over/manipulate the people of a church is Nicolaitan?  If so, then any effort to control the church or a pastor through finances would be Nicolaitan.  Any effort to bully the people of a church would be Nicolaitan.  Any effort to blameshift as a manner to keep position would be Nicolaitan.  Any effort to destroy the people of a church through false doctrine would be Nicolaitan, but so would any effort to cause Christians to stumble in their church be considered Nicolaitan.

It seems that this term can be thrown around like the word "proud."  The pastor tells the member: You don't listen to me, so you are proud.  Meanwhile, the member tells the pastor: You won't listen to me because you are proud.  Two people on different sides of the coin are using the same label with which to attack each other's view.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

What you all should have realized is that NICOL comes from Nicolus who is Saint Nicholas or Santa Clause and Santa has stolen Christmas and caused many to turn away from the faith.

God hates Rudolph!  Therefore, we good Christians need to go hunting more frequently.



8)



Now back to a serious discussion.

 

[T-Bone]

What you all should have realized is that NICOL comes from Nicolus who is Saint Nicholas or Santa Clause and Santa has stolen Christmas and caused many to turn away from the faith.

God hates Rudolph!  Therefore, we good Christians need to go hunting more frequently.



8)



Now back to a serious discussion.

Here you go...
http://youtu.be/CX7BJaptphA

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

I see little to no doubt that the Nicolaitans conquered the laity.  This is, after all, the definition of the word.  It does seem to be named after a leader who must have been dogmatic, or, what we would call today, cultish.  What they conquered the laity with and how they conquered seems to be the question.

Could we fairly argue that ANY exercise to rule over/manipulate the people of a church is Nicolaitan?  If so, then any effort to control the church or a pastor through finances would be Nicolaitan.  Any effort to bully the people of a church would be Nicolaitan.  Any effort to blameshift as a manner to keep position would be Nicolaitan.  Any effort to destroy the people of a church through false doctrine would be Nicolaitan, but so would any effort to cause Christians to stumble in their church be considered Nicolaitan.

It seems that this term can be thrown around like the word "proud."  The pastor tells the member: You don't listen to me, so you are proud.  Meanwhile, the member tells the pastor: You won't listen to me because you are proud.  Two people on different sides of the coin are using the same label with which to attack each other's view.

If you define Nicolaitan this way, yes you are correct IF your definition of rule over/maipulate allows Biblical leadership it appropriate place.

Let's be honest here. There are a lot of posters on this forum that were hurt at FBCH along the way. That kind of hurt can create a protectionary mindset that no longer allows Biblical leadership any place. That would be wrong. Before I started this church I candidated at a church that had been hurt by oppressive leadership. They re-wrote their constitution and basically took away the pastors right to even vote. Everything, and I mean everything had to be decided by the membership at a business meeting. Every lightbulb purchase, every man who filled the pulpit, every purchase of a paper clip. The pastor only had the authourity to suggest the purchase to the church council who would then bring it up before the congregation at the next business meeting. They got hurt, and went too far. I declined the call.

So to answer your question again, yes, if you define Nicolaitan this way, you could use it this way, as long as...

 

[subllibrm]

Pastor = bad guy

 

[bgwilkinson]

Many pastors it would seem, do not want to be accountable to the assembly of believer priests.

They appear to be bosses and not shepherds.

Popish pastors.