Bible Study Nicolaitians and other bad guys

[Not_Now.Soon]

I wish we knew more about the Nicolatians, because that group seems to have the least amount said about them. One thing though. In Revelation 2:18-29 the letter to Thyatira mentions both the Nicolatians and the followers of Jezebel. Verse 24 encourages those who haven't fallen for these false teachings, and calls them "depths of Satan." The wording I have reminded me of another verse in one of the letters to hod true to what they were origionally taught instead of accepting the "deeper truths" that were really depths of Satan.

If that's a correct observation between the verses then perhaps either the Nicolatians or the Jezebal followers were who we identify as gnostic Christians in the early church. From what I've heard that branch of Christians thought they held "deeper truths" too, and may have thought they were better then their brothers and sisters in Jesus because of their "special knowledge."

Perhaps that is who the Nicolatians were? The Gnostics?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

No, it's on subject , NNS.

Qualifications are for Deacons and Bishops to be "the husband of one wife".

Technically, that could knock out BOTH women and celibate men!

It says " husband of one wife " in a setting where many Gentiles might become a Christian and already have three wives!

It Doesn't say "have o n e or zero wives" but one wife.

What does that mean?

If a guy is a widower and got married again, is he out?

Jews had multiple wives, we know, the 12 sons of Israel come from 2 wives PLUS their 2 handmaidens - 12 sons from 4 women.

Putting those into clergy doctrine, then it might support having a selected members of a community act as clergy does today. In that light the meeting from elders in Acts to cover the issue of Gentiles could be similar to the console of Nicia or other consoles held by bishops and elders in the churches that chapped much of the early doctrinal beliefs in Christianity.

What I agree with though is that modern day clergy (of any kind, and denomination) don't seem to line up with the standards of how to pick them set forth in the bible. Maybe a revival is needed not just in everyday people, but also a revival in church leaders over all too?

 

[Anto9us2]

Yep. Them bad Gnostics, or an incipient form of them, are candidates for Nicolaitians.

So - Nicolaitians, Balaam -followers, Jezebel-followers and GNOSTICS - let's get 'em!!

We should rejoice that they faded away, but generally I see old heresies return I n different guise. ARIANISM was pretty much whumped by Nice n e CREED, pockets of it held out a long time in some parts of Europe. Current cult of Jehoveh' s witnesses has ARIANISM of a sort in it.

 

[JohnDB]

Gnostics is the most best guess.
They did have a Priest named Nicolas that was fairly popular... except his "knowledge" wasn't so much a secret.

And his teachings are still rather popular today.
All through the scriptures there is called for a level of purity and heart condition called for. The "Gnostics" said that so long as you held your identity in Christ you could otherwise do as you please. IOW if you wanted the services of a prostitute and could afford it you were allowed to do so...so long as you still claimed Christ and did the best that you could otherwise. Jezebel was a "special" woman... according to the prophecy she and her followers got a social disease and died.

Today we see things like homosexual Christian churches performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples and all sorts of blasphemies. Blood Sports haven't entered the Churches yet...but I imagine that it's eventually coming. We already have several sex scandals running rampant through congregations by pastoral staff and others.

 

[Anto9us2]

If "clergy" had a revival and this modern-day Nicolaitianism was debunked, it would only be good.

 

[Anto9us2]

PRIESTS, as such, are KAPUT in New Testament.

Christ is High PRIEST - upper-case - all Christians are priests, lower-case.

But I don't really expect Catholics, Orthodox, or Whiskypalians to do away with titles priests and fathers til Kingdom Come.

 

[Boaz]

Hold up a second. There are a few letters I thought that veered into church leadership. Was it 1 Timothy or 2 Timothy that had instructions on how to choose deacons and elders of those churches. Titus too I think.

Of the teaching that I can remember I think, it goes on this angle. Find people who have their affairs in order and are not drunks, disorderly, have their family in good standing (showing as a sign that they can lead a family) and to not raise in the ranks of church leadership too quickly. These qualities and advise I think were good for the church to find good leaders for their communities, and also good for the leaders so that they weren't temped by pride or immaturity in the faith when they become a leader too quickly. I'd also say that by the standards of needing to have your affairs set in order, that should also be a condition where pastors and church leaders can lose their office if they get caught up in sins. (Not kicked out of the church, but just not leading it any more).

I wonder if doing these things would have changed clergy over the years, or in other denominations, had a better effect for elders over churches and church offices that took on a leadership role. I think it would've had a great effect on the church as a whole. For instence in the clurgy finding out that fellow members of the clurgy were involved in sexual sins wouldn't have acted in hiding the information and relocating the clergy for their own protection (one of the accusations towards the Catholic Church that I've heard). Instead before the issue would have gotten that big the clurgy member would leave their station of leadership, and take on other roles of the church. On the other hand, in other denominations, there are often younger members in the church boards, or who are pastoring the church as a whole. Or the members are young in their faith (not Christian as long). If the standards were to me mature Christians before becoming an elder of a church, then maybe churches would be more stable and not slipping away from bible doctrine more and more over the years (nor get into issues of extremism causing hatred on the street corners).

Just some thoughts. Though sorry for the tangent away from the subject.

You have a very good point. I agree with you that a church, as in the visible church, needs leadership and organization and if we had followed forever the outlines of the Bible, our congregations and teaching would be much better off. In fact in scripture, it was not an outline. It was how it is supposed to be done. The apostles were laying the foundation of Christ's church. Exactly what was to be taught, doctrine,, behaviors, discipline, order.

 

[JohnDB]

No, it's on subject , NNS.

Qualifications are for Deacons and Bishops to be "the husband of one wife".

Technically, that could knock out BOTH women and celibate men!

It says " husband of one wife " in a setting where many Gentiles might become a Christian and already have three wives!

It Doesn't say "have o n e or zero wives" but one wife.

What does that mean?

If a guy is a widower and got married again, is he out?

Jews had multiple wives, we know, the 12 sons of Israel come from 2 wives PLUS their 2 handmaidens - 12 sons from 4 women.

As always with proper Hermeneutics...

We ask Questions.
Who is the Author?
Who is the intended recipient?
What was their relationship?
The intended recipient...what was unique about them? Where were they? What cultural norms were present?

And the list like this goes on and on.

Paul is unique in that he is fully Jewish and a full Roman Citizen. He was fully immersed in both cultures.

In Jewish society polygamy was common, especially in the rich portion of society.

In Roman culture men were only allowed one wife which gave her specific legal rights. But a rich Roman man might (and usually did) have a consort. This was usually the woman the man liked and showed affection to. She might live in his house (along with the wife) or in a separate house. Every situation was somewhat different.

Timothy was Greek, but raised by a Jewish mother who taught him the scriptures and traditions of Jewish community... including polygamy.

Paul, in his letter to Timothy (in Ephesus) told him to pick men who only had one wife because in his earlier letter to the Ephesians he told "Wives" to respect their husband. And Husband's to love their wives.

So when Paul writes Timothy he tells him to pick men (men should lead) who were the husband of only one wife. IOW men who had no concubines because since Paul had never once said that polygamy was bad... only that the man married to more than one wife was too busy pleasing his wives to be involved with the leadership role in the Church. He wasn't evil...just too busy. The guys involved in polygamy are usually hen pecked...it ain't like what many people think.

However, men with concubines were usually rather wealthy and willing to enter into a Patron/Servant role in the church for personal status reasons. Leadership was something Paul didn't want them to be a part of. It was difficult enough to keep the people's theology straight without bribery or extortion being involved.

 

[for_his_glory]

Nicolaitans
The Nicolaitans were a Gentile heretic sect that converted over to Judaism to dominate others with their heretic teachings. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret mentioned this group, and stated that the deacon Nicolas was the author of the heresy and the sect. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles in AD 33, Acts 6:5. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence as in eating things offered to idols. The teaching of the Nicolaitans was to dominate the people leading them astray from that of what Jesus taught and this goes against the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 20:25-28.

Jezebel
Scripture does not mention the spirit of Jezebel, but we see her name mentioned in 1&2 Kings and Rev 2 associated with the church of Tyatira. She was the daughter of Ethbaal king of Tyre/Sidon and priest of the cult of Baal. A cruel, sensuous and revolting false god. The worship of Baal involved sexual degradation and lewdness. King Ahab married Jezebel and led the nation into Baal worship. One of her traits was domineering and controlling others, especially in the spiritual realm. Not the spiritual realm of God, but the spiritual realm of Satan.

When she became queen she began to try and rid Israel from from worshiping God. She ordered the extermination of all the prophets of God and replace their altars with those of Baal. There was a contest between her an Elijah over the power of God and the power of Baal. Needless to say she lost, but even after seeing the power of God she refused to repent and turn to God.

The phrase spirit of Jezebel in many churches today is the reality of Rev 2:18-20 as false prophets stand behind the pulpit seducing the congregation to as they are carried away with a false doctrine of man.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Balaam
Balaam is found in Numbers chapter 22-24. Balaam considers himself a non-Israelite, a diviner, a prophet and the son of Beor. Beor is a name which appears as a king and a diviner. Balak, king of Moab, was afraid of the invasion of the Israelites as they outnumbered Balak's army so he asked Balaam to come and curse the people of Israel. God told Balaam in a vision that he should not go with Balak, but after the urging of Balak God allowed Balaam to go with him. Balaam mounted his donkey and left with the messengers of Balak. On the way and angel sent by God stood on the road with a sword drawn. The donkey saw the angel and swerved aside refusing to continue even when Balaam kept hitting the donkey with his stick. God caused the donkey to speak and the donkey started to complain against his ill treatment. Then was Balaam's eyes opened and he saw the angel. The angel told him to proceed with the men, but only to speak what the angel told him to say.

Balak came out to meet Balaam and reproached him for being late in coming to him. Balaam told him that he could only speak what God gives him to say. The next day Balak and Balaam went up on a high mountain to see the camp of the Israelites. Balaam ordered that seven altars be built and a bull and a ram were sacrificed on the altars. It was time for Balaam to stand and curse the people of Israel, but instead he uttered blessings upon them. Balak was angry and sent Balaam back to his own land. Balaam's last words to Balak was a prophecy that Israel would one day triumph over Moab. Instead of returning home Balaam stayed in the region and joined the Midianites. He suggested to them that the way to defeat Israel was to encourage them to be immoral and promiscuous. Balaam was killed in a
battle where the Israelites defeated the Midianites.

Nicolaitans - false prophets
Jezebel - false prophetess
Balaam - false prophet

 

[for_his_glory]

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.

Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. At any rate, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring. (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).

Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern translations, an "s" has been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a woman could not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has accidentally dropped the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc., the above references should be enough to establish that women were indeed a vital and normal part of church leadership. Paul expected women to speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following directive. It would have been useless to give directions for women who were speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.

Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that.

 

[Anto9us2]

Wow - good stuff, FHG !

 

[Anto9us2]

Also good stuff from JohnDB and everyone else. Thanks so much for the input.

 

[JohnDB]

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.

Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!

Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. At any rate, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring. (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).

Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.

Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern translations, an "s" has been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a woman could not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has accidentally dropped the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.

Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc., the above references should be enough to establish that women were indeed a vital and normal part of church leadership. Paul expected women to speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following directive. It would have been useless to give directions for women who were speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.

Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that.

Most women were uneducated...but not all.

Israelites taught girls in school but most girls dropped out early for lessons on cooking and sewing and other domestic duties.
Romans were definitely different.
Women were usually uneducated unless they requested to be educated and their parents could afford to "waste the money" on a woman's education. There wasn't many opportunities for an educated woman to use her education. Reading and writing and mathematics were usually kept to very basic levels for women... advanced skills of algebra, calculus, geometry, weren't prized to begin with... women knowing this stuff even less so. (Yes they even had calculus back then)

Romans built libraries...they harvested the papyrus plant that was great for making paper almost to the point of extinction...it still exists today but only as an expensive ornamental plant.

Romans had a societal goal of " be all you can be" meaning to always strive to be the best you can any which way you can.

Paul didn't want women leadership for a reason. Men should lead. They should be capable. Women could teach in private...but not lead a whole congregation. (Which is why the seeming double speak)

 

[RevSRE]

This is NOT a one line soundbite subject, Please prayerfully read this and comment.
Yes, EVERY Christian is a PRIEST.
Who were the Nicolaitanes?
Νικολαιτων νικο + λαος
“victory” + “people” = “Victory over the people”
בלעם “Balaam” בעל + עם =
“people” + “lord/master” “Master over the people”
Nicolaitanes were the ones that were making a FORMAL RULE THE CHURCH "Priest/Cleric" Class to steel from the people the Priest hood of the Believer.

Jesus our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec Priest of Grace
Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing…
Heb 5:6 Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Martin Luther after careful and prayerful review of Church doctrine and behavior came to the conclusion that the Church was wrong. He set about to correct the problem he saw and the result was the Protestant Reformation.

For many years I have asked, what in the Church and people could have caused the conditions leading up to the Reformation and The Enlightenment? The question I have with the teachings and practice of the Church are the result of a long study of all I could find on the subject. I was disappointed to find that almost from the very first there was discord in the early Church. This discord was of course over authority and leadership. In the Anti-Nicene writings we see almost immediately a division of authority and an attempt to set aside power and authority for the clergy. This seeking power builds until by 324 ad the clergy had judicial power as well as protection by the military. The power was only to build into the excesses that Luther apposed. I would pose that this power is not in the New Testament. (15)

The history of the young Church is filled with men that thought their position on scripture was “more inspired” than others. In this way these leaders tried to make their Church the center of the Christian Church. There were many struggles in the statement of Doctrine. The debate over the trinity and the divinity of Christ were first and most heated, so much so that the early history of the Church is divided by the council that made concessions to settle the dispute. We still use the words of that creed today. In his wisdom as a leader, Constantine saw the real issue and in his letter to Alexander and Aries he rightly saw both had a level of self-promotion in the debate and were in a way both wrong. Constantine saw the problem here was less over the trinity and more about power. His own power was based on his relation to the Church and he did not want division in the Church or the people. When he had the issue prayerfully submitted to the scriptures and the Council of Nicene, the result was a statement all could agree on. But the issue was over power and the statement did not settle the struggle for power.

The struggle for power has robbed the Church of one of its greatest treasures. Please understand I do not present this in exclusion of other topics. It is a wonderful and under discussed truth. I am referring to the position of the Christian in the family of God (Romans 8.), and the priestly responsibility of every Christian. (Hebrews)

I can only ask that you read this with an open mind and try to see what was intended for the Church. Every Christian has the power of a priest to God and the formal clergy are to serve the Church, not rule it. Every Christian is to know and study the bible, growing in grace and knowledge, not waiting for the clergy to tell them what the bible says.

One of the cardinal passages affected by this debate is Romans 10. In verse 9 we are told we must confess with our mouth and believe in our heart to be saved.

Verse 14 holds the responsibility for every Christian, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher.” {preacher here is a messenger, to herald, to proclaim, not our church pastor.} Please read on and see what privilege and responsibility is given to every Christian. A priest and king and heir to heaven with Christ.



Priest after the order of Melchisedec!
Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing…
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn. Exo 13:2
Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. Gen14:18
Thou shalt take the Levites for me (I am the LORD) instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel Num 3:41 Num 3:12
For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Heb 5:1
Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Heb 5:6
Question

The words of Hebrews 5:11 poses a question that should send us all digging into the word. What were the “many things to say”? The many things were about, Christ, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God a high priest after the order of Melchisedec. This is a new priesthood. We find in the Bible the first men set aside as priest they were the eldest sons sanctified to God. They were to have a birthright responsibility to God to be the spiritual backbone of the nation. The Patriarchs of the Old Testament were such men. The eldest of the family became the leaders both government and spiritual. Their priesthood was by birth they were given to God. After the Passover the Firstborn was to be given to God, they were redeemed by Him Ex 13:2. Later after the nation was mature and given an inheritance God chose a specific group from one tribe to be the priest, the Levities. But, who was this Melchizedek, and what was his priesthood. Why was he chosen from all the Old Testament leaders to be a type for Christ? Let’s look at the beginning of the story. Gen 14

 

[RevSRE]

Part two:
Story
As is often true in the affairs of men the kings of Abraham’s day could not get along and greed caused them to invade and capture one another’s land, people, and property. Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim; four kings with five. And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain. And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way. And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and depart.

As is often true in the affairs of men, the kings made a big mistake they took Lot and his family captive. Of course word of this got back to Abraham and he could not let Lot be taken. Abraham used what God had given him. When Abram heard that his brother’s son was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Ok. Now look at this, the mighty kings of the land fought wars and took captives and then Abraham and his servants defeated them in battle after battle. As Abraham and his men were coming home they passed another king, the one that lost the battle and let Lot get taken. So the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale. I feel sure this king wanted to meet Abraham on friendly terms if possible and to be sure Abraham did not do to him what was done to the other warring kings. He was smart enough to bring help he brought a man Abraham would respect; Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the Most High God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Abraham recognized the man of God and honored both God and the priest King by giving an offering that was required by God, to God the way all such offerings are given, at the hand of the priest. Abraham did not give Melchizedek an offering he gave God a tithe to honor both. And so we meet this figure from the Old Testament. A King, a Priest, an equal to Abraham, as a King a superior to him, A Patriarch, first born in a time when the first-born was Sanctified to be the spiritual leaders of men. The only way he could have been a Priest was by birthright. King and priest by birth just as Christ was to be which is why Melchizedek is a type of Christ. And it is this priest by birth that is of interest to us.
In the second priesthood, the Levitical Priesthood, The priest were born of one family and had to prove it. Their genealogy was very important. It was their right to be a priest. The records were kept with care and ceremony. Mother, father, birth date, and life was all carefully recorded and kept for the future, because they would need the records. The Nation of Israel had a formal Priesthood. These were charged with the spiritual health of a nation, God’s people. Melchizedek was not such a priest. We are told he did not have the needed records of mother, father, birth, and life of service. And of course the Levitical Priesthood had not been given when we meet him with Abraham.

Heb 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
A priest by birth, a priest sanctified to God, a priest from the people, and a priest as spiritual teacher for all, this is the King and priest by birth order of Melchisedec. Why was this Old Testament man selected? Maybe it is because he was both priest by birth and a king.

Let me try to bring some things together and make my point. The point of this discussion, and the many things to say, and hard to be uttered is this priest hood. The fact that Christ is our high priest is not hard to follow, God said it. What that means to us in daily life seems not to have been widely seen. Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec, by birth. When we look beyond our self and see the wondrous Grace of God, and with the simplest Faith reach out to Him, the one who paid sins price with His own Blood, we are born into the family of God.

It is a birthright with eternal life and eternal responsibility!

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev 1:6 and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The spirit of adoption making us the children of God and joint-heirs of Christ is the new priesthood. It is the adoption into the family of God. There is much that has not been included in what it means to be a Christian in the teachings of the church. Part may have been because it was hard to say and we are weak of understanding. But, in the history of the church a good part of the problem is telling the Christian story in a way to help those in leadership positions control the masses of people.
How do you tell someone you are a child of the king heir to the throne of God, member of the heavenly family, Priest under the High Priest Jesus Christ. You may go directly to the Fathers side with your petitions.
Then tell them I am in charge and will tell you what you need to know and do for the church. I will tell you what the scripture says and all you must do. The failure to teach the truth about the Priesthood of the Christian is a choice of the leaders in the church to control people and the same grasp for power that lead to both the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
First the priest hood was by firstborn birth, responsible to lead the people to God.
Second is a tribe of Israel chosen by God to replace the birthright.
Third is the High Priesthood of Jesus, and our adoption into the family of God

1 Peter 2:4-5 (NKJV)

4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious,

5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)

9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Revelation 1:5-6 (NKJV)

5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10 (NKJV)

10 And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth."

Revelation 20:5-6 (NKJV)

5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

We are adopted heirs to the wonders of God. These verses say Jesus made us kings and priest unto God. We need no one to take our cause to God. We have the adoption of sons, the status of family, and may go to God on His promise and blood.

Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing…

This new birthright and our place in it along with our relation to Jesus Christ our High Priest is the heart of “many things to say” and of which we cannot allow ourselves to be “dull of hearing”. Much of the problem in our present time come from the church not teaching the true position and responsibilities of the Christian.

 

[RevSRE]

Part three:
We have a responsibility to go tell others the wonders of God’s grace. If there is suffering and hard work, the toil is nothing compared to the love of God. And even this suffering has a promise.

Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
We have a responsibility, Every Christian has a responsibility, to support the Church and learn the truth from the word of God and to share this truth with others. We must learn what we can of what the world is saying and the errors that confront the Church. How else can we ever seek to teach the truth and correct errors if we do not know what they are?

I was talking to a Theologian, he asked what my leaning with respect to theology was? I said I am a Historic Christian Fundamentalist. He got quite upset and went off on Fundamentalist.

You put your conformity to doctrine ahead of social good.

You make the claim that you are right to the exclusion of others,

You are too serious about religion and not interested in social good and knowledge.

“Any person who truly believes and is true to that belief will be saved, God loves us all.”

At this point I stopped him. I said you and I have a different understanding of Christian Fundamentalist. I am not interested in Liberals and proponents of the Social Gospel slander of the term, I am referring to the basic teachings of faith.



Five fundamentals of the faith:

(1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs

(2) the virgin birth and deity of Christ;

(3) the substitutionary view of the atonement;

(4) the bodily resurrection of Christ;

(5) The imminent return of Christ.



So often we are using the same words and not even on the same subject. We must know what the secular world is saying if we are to reach them with the Gospel.

The modern church is so multicultural and liberal they come dangerously close to being a cult. In a mainstream church I was told my ideas of the gospel were wrong. “Anything a person truly believes and lives will take them to heaven, God loves everyone.”

The heirs of the CROSS have failed America.

WE have allowed the “Natural Man” to say “that is your belief”, “that is your Bible”, “every ones belief is equal”,” there are many truths”, “you don’t have a right to tell me what to believe.”



WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT IS RIGHT??





I SAY:

I am; A Priest of the Most High GOD!

Adopted Child of God, joint heir of Jesus Christ.

Heir to the throne of Heaven.

A bond slave of the King of Kings



The birthright with Christ carries with it a great responsibility.



I am sure you know of the “Romans Road to Salvation”. This is Paul’s outline of the steps or method of being saved. It is often only partly quoted, but here is what he said.



1. The righteousness of God is needed because

a. there is no difference

b. for all have sinned



Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:21 But the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:



Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.



Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.



Rom 10:9 That if you shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God hath raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.



This very familiar verse tells us How the act of being saved works. With the Heart Believes, with the Mouth Confesses.



How Shall they hear if the Priest of this age of grace fails to carry the message?



Our position in the family of God carries with it a Great responsibility, we are the Priest of Grace the messenger to tell the world about Jesus. The next verses are not so often read but they tell us of that responsibility.



How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a messenger? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? Romans 10:14-15



Christ said “You must be Born again,” and as such we are new creatures in Christ.

We have a birthright responsibility to tell others the wonderful story of the Gospel. We are the Priest of this age, the Priest of Grace, to tell the world about JESUS is our Responsibility. If they do not hear they will not be saved, and that is an eternal loss. WE are to live a new life dedicated to God to spread the Gospel.



We have failed to stand, to be heard, and to teach the truth. We have allowed the liberal humanist to establish the standards of debate, and once in power they are hard to move.



Have we chosen to follow the easy path in our busy lives?

Have we let others claim the authority to say, “Live any way you want to”?

Could we stand with the martyrs and face the wild animals or torture for the name of CHRIST?

Who can face death with Polycarp and say, “Eighty and six years He never failed me I will not deny Him now”?



When the need is great who will stand in the gap?



The church today has lost her way and can’t seem to stand where the stand matters.



Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.



Yet we are responsible as heirs to heaven, Priest of Grace, We must take a stand. We must know the modern humanist and defeat them.

 

[Anto9us2]

RevSRE, that was very informative. I am enlightened to see an emphasis on THE WORDS in the name "Nicolaitians" rather than a focus on "Nicolas", for the DEEDS and the DOCTRINE of the Nicolaitians were what Jesus HATED, not some man named Nicolas.

Jesus said Call no man Father. Not only is that ignored, but a whole caste system of clergy vs laity is invented.