LSM's Etymological Errors - Nigel Tomes

[Cal]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

10. Laodicea - A terrible teaching in LR is that no one should have an opinion except the human leader. Where is this in the Bible? Laodicea does mean "opinion" or "judgment of the laity". It can be + or -, but from the context of the epistle, it is clearly negative. It means an absence of leadership. There may be a supreme leader at the top, but no leader in the local church thinking for himself and giving constructive criticism. According to the epistle to Laodicea, what was the opinion of the laity? It was that everything is great, we are rich and have need of nothing. No one is pointing out that they may be blind, naked, wretched and poor. This kind of fellowship requires leadership. 1Cor14, which is what we base our meetings on, says that the prophets should judge what the others say, and not just confirm it. WL's problem here was not the use of etymology, but making it supersede what the actual text says.
There are LC leaders who seem to think that they should not listen to any constructive criticism. To do so, they think would be Laodicea. If you say anything out of the flow, they raise their voice and don't let you talk. They think they should only listen to God, but do they hear God? How do you know if someone loves God? He loves those begotten by God. How do you know if someone listens to God? He listens to those begotten by God.


11. Nicolaitans - I agree with WL and WN.

The funny thing about these two words is that according to LC interpretation they are really at odds. Nicolaitans seems to say don't lord it over the people, which in practice would seem to mean to respect people's opinions. (How else would you practically apply not lording??)

But Laodicea means "opinion or rule of the people," which the LC took mean (in practice) that they should rule over the people.

So you have to put both together. No lording over the people, and no opinion of the people. So Laodicea probably has nothing to do with human leadership. It probably just means the people were following their own preferences, rather than submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is definitely a sign of degradation.

Of course, this assumes we are to take meaning and guidance from these words. I agree with ViW that these words have meaning. There is just too much of a logical pattern in the names of the cities, and if we don't interpret the meaning of Nicolaitans then we can extract little if any meaning from its usage at all.

But trying to extract meaning from the etymology of every word in Bible seems overboard. Again, stick to the plain, clear message. Everything else is a bonus. I think anyone can mount a great Christian life just sticking to the basics. There are going to be lots of overcomers who didn't have a clue about the names of these cities but had the reality because they understood and obeyed the basics.

We spend a lot of time here worrying about graduate school subjects, which when you get right down to it are often superfluous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The funny thing about these two words is that according to LC interpretation they are really at odds. Nicolaitans seems to say don't lord it over the people, which in practice would seem to mean to respect people's opinions. (How else would you practically apply not lording??)

But Laodicea means "opinion or rule of the people," which the LC took mean (in practice) that they should rule over the people.

So you have to put both together. No lording over the people, and no opinion of the people. So Laodicea probably has nothing to do with human leadership. It probably just means the people were following their own preferences, rather than submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is definitely a sign of degradation.

The Lord Jesus, in many instances while He walked with His disciples, warned them about "ruling like the Gentiles." Peter calls this "lording it over" the flock. The Bible is filled with instructions about proper shepherding oversight and warnings to the contrary.

If we want to look at the etymological meaning of the word "Nicolaitans," i.e. conquering the common people, then we must conclude that the plain and obvious teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets are addressed in this word.

But Nee, and subsequently Lee, did the old "bait and switch." They used these teachings to attack the leadership in the body of Christ. They condemned all pastors, ministers, teachers, evangelists, etc., yet it was the Head of the body "who gave gifts" to men, and via the apostles, established church offices.

If Nee and Lee had given us a "purer" form of leadership and an ecclesiastical paradigm, as they promised us, then we would continue to listen to them. On the contrary, however, what they gave us was every bit as abusive and lording over as the one they condemned. In fact, it could be argued that the system of Nee and Lee was worse. The Blendeds for sure have done no better.

After being "restored" to his ministry, apparently without repentance for the reasons he was disciplined, Nee's first act of leadership was to demand that all the faithful "hand over" their lives and possessions to him. Even worse acts of abuse have been reported about Lee frequently on this forum. These acts of hypocrisy and corruption have caused their reputations to suffer, and not some unwarranted persecution as we have long been told.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Lord Jesus, in many instances while He walked with His disciples, warned them about "ruling like the Gentiles." Peter calls this "lording it over" the flock. The Bible is filled with instructions about proper shepherding oversight and warnings to the contrary.

If we want to look at the etymological meaning of the word "Nicolaitans," i.e. conquering the common people, then we must conclude that the plain and obvious teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets are addressed in this word.

But Nee, and subsequently Lee, did the old "bait and switch." They used these teachings to attack the leadership in the body of Christ. They condemned all pastors, ministers, teachers, evangelists, etc., yet it was the Head of the body "who gave gifts" to men, and via the apostles, established church offices.

If Nee and Lee had given us a "purer" form of leadership and an ecclesiastical paradigm, as they promised us, then we would continue to listen to them. On the contrary, however, what they gave us was every bit as abusive and lording over as the one they condemned. In fact, it could be argued that the system of Nee and Lee was worse. The Blendeds for sure have done no better.

After being "restored" to his ministry, apparently without repentance for the reasons he was disciplined, Nee's first act of leadership was to demand that all the faithful "hand over" their lives and possessions to him. Even worse acts of abuse have been reported about Lee frequently on this forum. These acts of hypocrisy and corruption have caused their reputations to suffer, and not some unwarranted persecution as we have long been told.

Right, Lee and the church elders were clergy in everything but name. Still, interpreting the passage in terms of etymology is doubtful in view of the historical facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaitanes#Attribution