Nicolaitans Myth

Some anti hierarchical Protestants like to push the myth that the Catholic Church is the Nicolaitans mentioned in Revelation 2:

But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.-Revelation 2:6

Likewise, you also have some people who hold to the teaching of (the) Nicolaitans.-Revelation 2:15

They claim Nicolaitian means "nico" =over, and "laitian"=laity, so they claim Nicolaitan refers to a system when there is a difference between clerics and the laity, a hierarchy. This interpretation is new, it was probably invented by Scofield.

The fact is Nicolaitans is a group named after a man named Nicholas, just a people are called Christians in the Bible. The name Nicolas is a Greek new testament name:

masc. proper name, from Gk. Nikholaos, lit. "victory-people," from nike "victory" + laos "people."-Etymoline.com

My interlinear explains the name means "conquer people." Could this sect be named after a man named Nicholas? Well there is a Nicolas in Acts 6:5

The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.--Acts 6:5

In Greek Nicholas is spelled νικόλαον, the sect of the Nicolaitans in Greek is νικολαϊτῶν. Let's compare νικόλαον and νικολαϊτῶν.

Why don't dispensationalists ever claim that the Nicholas of Acts 6:5 is part of some evil hierarchy?, after all, the dispensationalists do tell us that Nicholas means laity conqueror.

The fact is it is more reasonable to believe the Nicolaitan's is a sect named after a man of that name. In fact the early Christians even identified the Nicholaus of Acts 6:5 with the Nicolaitans sect of Revelation 2.

A brother heretic emerged in Nicolaus. He was one of the seven deacons who were appointed in the Acts of the Apostles. [Acts 6:5] He affirms that Darkness was seized with a concupiscence— and, indeed, a foul and obscene one— after Light: out of this permixture it is a shame to say what fetid and unclean (combinations arose). The rest (of his tenets), too, are obscene. For he tells of certain Æons, sons of turpitude, and of conjunctions of execrable and obscene embraces and permixtures, and certain yet baser outcomes of these. He teaches that there were born, moreover, dæmons, and gods, and spirits seven, and other things sufficiently sacrilegious. alike and foul, which we blush to recount, and at once pass them by. Enough it is for us that this heresy of the Nicolaitans has been condemned by the Apocalypse of the Lord[Revelation 2] with the weightiest authority attaching to a sentence, in saying "Because this you hold, you hate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which I too hate."--Tertullian, cAD 200, Against All Heresies, Chapter 1

"look also on Nicolas, sentenced in the Apocalypse by the Lord's own lips [Revelation 2:6]"--St Jerome, cAD 400, Letter 14

"There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols."-St Hippolytus, AD 220, Refutation of All Heresies, Book VII:Chapter 24

There are more references....

Baptism's Role

The Catholic Church since ancient times taught the doctrine that baptism is the sacrament that results in a believer's regeneration (being born again). Many Protestants reject the historical and Biblical doctrine that Baptism regenerates a believer in Christ and saves them. Some Protestants called hyper-dispensationalists even deny that using water in baptism is for today! Many Protestants treat baptism as a purely symbolic ritual. Ironically, they are the same people that reject calling Christianity a 'religion' because they believe Christianity is not a religion of rituals, despite the fact baptism and Communion are rituals Christ instituted.

There are a few Protestants groups that still recognize the value of baptism and hold that it does in fact regenerate, they include, but are not necessarily limited to: Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some Pentecostals.

Before responding to the Protestants that believe baptism does not save, I will post several Scriptures showing the importance and value of baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.--Mark 16:16

This verse clearly links baptism with the word "saved." However, in my experience Protestants will have 2 possible rebuttals to this: 1)the emphasis of Mark 16:16 is "belief," 2)this section is not part of the Bible.

To answer the first claim, to say the emphasis is 'belief' is just trying to ignore the fact baptism is even mentioned. This is more of a statement rather than a rebuttal. The fact is the sentence still reads "believers and is baptized will be saved." It does nothing to address the fact baptism is mentioned in connection to salvation.

The second claim is not very common since most Protestants still trust the KJV which includes this part of Mark 16. Once a Pentecostal minister told me this, then I later caught him quoting this same debated section of Scripture to lend support for speaking in tongues ie "speaking in new tongues" (Mark 16:!7). Even if, theoretically, this passage were an addition to Scripture, we do not rely solely on this passage to teach the importance of Baptism.

Now another verse that shows the role of baptism in salvation:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."-Acts 2:38

Peter here is making repentance and baptism necessary for the forgiveness of sins. This verse is also very straightforward in stating baptism's necessity for the forgiveness of sins. In my experience there have been a few rebuttals to this. One is the ridiculous claim that is saying sins are "remitted" in the sense of a disease, and they may come back somehow. Another rebuttal is that the word eis means they have forgiveness because they repented and because they have forgiveness they can be baptized. The third claim is a more modern and extreme claim by hyperdispensationalists who assert that this was only for that time, and now we have a "dry baptism," since it was intended for Jews.

In response to the first claim, the word remission is found in some older bibles like the KJV and DRB, however, even then the word remission typically means forgiveness, in the Greek the word remission is also used in Mark 3:29 for the forgiveness of the eternal sin, for more on this see the question and answer page on question Q7.

In response to the second claim, the word eis typically means "into" or "for." Their repentance and baptism causes their sins to be forgiven. The word is used about 1865 times in the New Testament, almost all the occurrences means "into" or "for."

In response to the third claim, Dispensationalism is false because Paul himself baptized people with water in Acts 19, 1 Corinthians 1, and Gentiles who were not proselytes to Judaism were explicitly baptized with water in Acts 10 by St Peter's order. There is no reason to believe they stopped or intended to cease water baptism. Also, the Christian baptism is not the same baptism as St John the Baptist since his followers had to be rebaptized with a Christian baptism in Acts 19.

Constantine, the Church, Christianity

Some people assert that the Catholic Church was not started til the fourth century. They never in my experience will provide any evidence, some however will point to Constantine and the Council of Nicea.

However, the fact is we have the list of the Bishops of Rome (popes as they are more commonly called now) going back to the time of St Peter in Rome, in fact many of the major Sees are able to list their Apostolic lineage, such as the See of Alexandria can show their list going back to St Mark.

Some assert Constantine made Trinitarianism the doctrine of the Church, which is not true. Constantine himself may have been Arian. Though he did help the Church gather together for the Council of Nicea which condemned Arianism (the doctrine that denies Jesus is God Almighty), Constantine's own son was an Arian, and Constantine was baptized on his death bed by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia. Constantine also wrote letters expressing how the controversy was some thing "small."

Trinitarianism was taught before Nicea and the 4th century. In fact the precursor to Arianism was condemned, which was the heresy of Paul of Samosata about 5 decades prior to Nicea was convened.

John 20:22-23, Rebuttal to the Protestant interpretation

Perhaps, the clearest passage showing the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins in the Name of Christ, the origin of the ability of the priests of the Church to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) is found in the passages in St John's Gospel 20:21-23

(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."--John 20:21-23

Many will object and assert that here the only thing Jesus is doing here is telling the Apostles that they can now forgive their brother when their brother sins against them.

This reading, however, is highly problematic. Their interpretation requires them to add two words into the verse to make it sins done against the Apostles. Let's see how their interpretation would read in they added the words to the text:

"If you forgive the sins done against you of any their sins done against you have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins done against you of any, they have been retained." (Protestant understanding of John 20:23)

The thing about this is that, if Christ wanted to say this He would have said this! Whenever the Bible speaks about sins done against God it simply says "sins against the LORD" or some variation of it, or simply says "sins" or some variation of sin like "trespass," "offend," etc. Now when they Bible says a person was harmed by another person it says someone "sinned against them", it always does so, so as to not confuse it with sinning against God. Here are a few examples:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.--Matthew 18:15

Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?-Matthew 18:22

And Ruben one of them, said: Did not I say to you: Do not sin against the boy: and you would not hear me? Behold his blood is required.--Genesis 42:22

Furthermore, why would Jesus have to breathe on them to have the ability to forgive the sins of their offenders? They were already said to have this ability in the Lord's Prayer, and Jesus said shortly after:

"If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions."--Matthew 6:14-15

It would seem if we were to follow the thought process no one had their sins forgiven since they did not have the Holy Spirit breathed on them.