The LCS Factor

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Matt, if we can evaluate all Christianity to the same standard, and not "raise the bar" when critiquing all the things of the LC's, then that's great. There's no perfect church.

Sorry, Ohio, I had been writing another post when I saw yours. I responded to it first, but it included a perfect lead-in to what I was writing.

You're right. There is no perfect church. In fact, the Lord was very clear about this in Revelation 2-3.

TJ brought the Church in Pergamos into focus. Pergamos is from the N.T. and points to the O.T. for supporting the Lord's message.

I want to follow-up on it with some information about Rev 2:14 and the doctrine of Balaam.

This will only take care of half of the equation on Pergamos. The other half is in the doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

Revelation 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

There are parts of this verse that are a bit of a puzzle. You cannot find a verse in the OT that points to the fact that Balaam "taught" Balak the particular thing that Balak learned and used to 'cast a stumblingblock' in front of the children of Israel.

You can find a verse that shows that Balaam 'counseled' Balak (Numbers 31:16), but if you read through the entire account of Balaam (Numbers 22-25) you don't find him telling Balak how to cause the children of Israel to fall. Balaam works for personal profit (aka filthy lucre and selfish gain). Balaam even has direct contact with the Lord and speaks the Word that the Lord gives to Balaam. He was a prophet of God and spoke the words that the Lord gave him to speak to Balak, but he did it for his own (Balaam's) sake.

Balaam is asked 3 times to curse the children of Israel and 3 times he ends up blessing them. Balak finally gets disgusted with it and Balak and Balaam part ways. Balaam doesn't "teach" Balak anything in the typical sense we think of "teaching". But Numbers 31:16 says:

Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah.

The word "counsel" is H1697 / dabar which means speaking or words. It doesn't mean "teach". It basically means talking.

I can't find anything else in the OT that indicates that Balaam was "teaching".

But the Spirit expressly says in Revelation 2:14 that Balaam "taught". The word in Greek is didaskos, which is used in many other places as "teach", "taught", etc.

So, what did Balaam "teach"?

He taught him this: If you can't beat them, entice them by means of wile and join them in 'friendship'.

This is exactly what Balak did. Balak didn't come out to go to war with the children of Israel. No, he went out with the enticements.

Num 25:1-2 And Israel abode in Sittim; and the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab: (2) for they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

If you have forgotten or I haven't said it, both 'meat' and 'women' were an enticement at this time. The children of Israel had already tested the Lord for want of meat. They complained about only having manna from heaven. They wanted meat to eat. So, yes, an invitation to sit at the table with Balak and eat meat was truly an enticement. (I don't have to explain the other one!)

It should be noted that God saw this coming. Read what he said in Exodus 34 very closely. Okay, okay I'll bold it for you.

Exo 34:14-16 for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: (15) lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot after their gods, and sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee and thou eat of his sacrifice; (16) and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods, and make thy sons play the harlot after their gods.

So back to what it says in Revelation 2:14. He says that some hold the 'doctrine of Balaam', who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication.

The call to Pergamos is this: Repent or else the Lord will come quickly and make war with the sword of His mouth.

Connecting the Dots?

Is anybody starting to connect the dots here? If not, I'll take a stab at it pretty soon, but I think we should get a reminder of the 'doctrines of the Nicolaitans'.

What were the 'children (young people in the Lord in the 60's/70's) of the LC' enticed with?

Matt

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Ohio I suggest that most Christians I know would conclude at least one of the following if they visited the LCS:

1. it's cultic
2. it idolizes Witness Lee
3. it has addictive behavior patterns in relation to Lee

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Matt

The call to Pergamos is this: Repent or else the Lord will come quickly and make war with the sword of His mouth.

Connecting the Dots?

Is anybody starting to connect the dots here? If not, I'll take a stab at it pretty soon, but I think we should get a reminder of the 'doctrines of the Nicolaitans'.

What were the 'children (young people in the Lord in the 60's/70's) of the LC' enticed with?

Matt

Matt:

I don't have any dot-connecting to do just yet, but I do have a preliminary question regarding Revelation 2.

I find it interesting that in the letter to Pergamos, the Spirit holds the entire church accountable even though it is only "some who hold to the doctrine of Balaam" and only "some who in the same way hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." The call, nevertheless, is for the whole church to repent for the beliefs of the some.

But even more interesting is the contrast with the letter to Thyatira. I really don't know why Thyatira is said to "tolerate" Jezabell - rather than accusing them of the same thing as Pergamos - holding to the teaching of Nicolaitans. It seems their error is identical: eating things sacrificed to idols and committing act of immorality. Yet the "source" or reason for each is different: teaching of Balaam in Pergamos and Jezabel in Thyatira.

And even yet more interesting, in Thyatira, it is not the whole church which is held accountable for the acts of the few. Verse 24: 'But I say to you, the rest who are in (BK)Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

Why is the whole church responsible for the beliefs of some in Pergamos, but not in Thyatira? And why is one said to hold to the teachings of Balaam and the other said to be enticed by Jezabel, when their outward acts are the same? Unless their beliefs are literally based on Balaam/Nicolaitans and Jezable, respectively - why use one analogy for one and another analogy for the other, when their error seems the same? And why the different consequences for the churches?

Peter

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I find it interesting that in the letter to Pergamos, the Spirit holds the entire church accountable even though it is only "some who hold to the doctrine of Balaam" and only "some who in the same way hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans." The call, nevertheless, is for the whole church to repent for the beliefs of the some.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

But even more interesting is the contrast with the letter to Thyatira. I really don't know why Thyatira is said to "tolerate" Jezabell - rather than accusing them of the same thing as Pergamos - holding to the teaching of Nicolaitans. It seems their error is identical: eating things sacrificed to idols and committing act of immorality. Yet the "source" or reason for each is different: teaching of Balaam in Pergamos and Jezabel in Thyatira.

And even yet more interesting, in Thyatira, it is not the whole church which is held accountable for the acts of the few. Verse 24: 'But I say to you, the rest who are in (BK)Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them--I place no other burden on you.

Why is the whole church responsible for the beliefs of some in Pergamos, but not in Thyatira? And why is one said to hold to the teachings of Balaam and the other said to be enticed by Jezabel, when their outward acts are the same? Unless their beliefs are literally based on Balaam/Nicolaitans and Jezable, respectively - why use one analogy for one and another analogy for the other, when their error seems the same? And why the different consequences for the churches?

Peter

Hi Peter,

Here are two possibilities I see for the difference in the scope of accountability:

1) In Thyatira it is clear that only some were holding the teachings of the prophetess Jezebel and practicing what she taught. Thus only those were accountable. What God had against the others was that they “suffered” her or let her be. This was bad but not as bad as those who practiced what she taught.

In the letter to Pergamos, it says “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine....” The Greek word “hast” means “to hold” and implies accompanying and following. The whole church was holding to these men and their teachings, so they were all implicated.

2) The church in Thyatira was told that they had not known the depths of Satan. "Depths" here in Greek is “profundity” or "mystery." This could be referring to the “mystery” of the Babylonian religion that eventually infiltrated the church. Deeper initiation into the "mysteries" of the Babylonian religion was directly tied to advancement in the priestly class system or hierarchy--a system that was used to control the common people.

This was was not present in Thyatira, but it seems that it was present in Pergamos through the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes which produces a system used to conquer or control the people. Apparently, those who were “conquered” or “subdued” were guilty because they believed this teaching and practiced accordingly, allowing themselves to be subdued and brought into bondage.

As believers we are to stand fast in the liberty we have in Christ and not be brought into bondage. When there is hierarchical control (where people are fully submitted to others because of their rank or class) a situation of bondage or servitude is produced. God hates this because His people are not to be in bondage. “I am the Lord thy God that brought the up out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” He brought them out of bondage to be free to serve Him. Serving others than God Himself brings bondage. The principal of idolatry was serving other gods. This is why God hated it so.

Another thing -- in Ephesus there were “deeds” of the Nicolaitanes, but this was not as harshly spoken of as it was in Pergamos. (God only said he hated it.) In Pergamos the situation was much more serious because they held the the “doctrine” of the Nicolaitanes. Maybe God holds us more accountable for accepting false teachings, because we are responsible for what we believe and are supposed to examine teachings for their truth in the light of the Scriptures.

In the Local Churches, we had the deeds of the Nicolaitanes before the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes reached the common saints. The doctrine of the Nicolaitanes was given to prospective members of the “governing” class in secret (like the mysteries?) in Texas as early as 1965; it was the early 1970s before it started to be taught openly among us. So, as in Pergamos, we all have to repent for this.

And one more thought--there is no such thing as group repentance whereby a representive repents for a group. The Spirit's call was to individuals to repent. When all the individuals in a group repent, then you could say there has been group repentance.

Thankful Jane

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Hi Peter,

Here are two possibilities I see for the difference in the scope of accountability:


In the letter to Pergamos, it says “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine....” The Greek word “hast” means “to hold” and implies accompanying and following. The whole church was holding to these men and their teachings, so they were all implicated.

Thankful Jane

Jane:

I will ponder further your second point and respond soon. I just don't see the first point. I don't think a translation of "to hold" enables the distinction between the situation of the two churches. I don't see the implications you do. It says "thou has there them that hold the doctrine..." Other translations say, "there are some who hold..." and still others, "you have there those who hold..."

Why not just say, "I have a few things against you: that you hold to the doctrine..." - similar to the construction and broad scope of the admonition to the Ephesions: "You [all of them - the whole church] have left your first love..." The constrcution of "you have some/those/ones..." doesn't carry the same scope - i.e. that they all - each and every one - held to the doctrine.

Nevertheless, the Spirit held them accountable. Thus, I think the distinction is more about the nature of the doctrine versus the enticing of Jezabel in Thyatira.

Still, I just don't see the distinction, yet. I found Matt's description of the teaching of Balaam compelling. But it could be condensed down to: the teaching was something that enticed the children of Israel. But put that way, I have an even harder time distinguishing it from the enticing of Jezabel.

Thoughts?

Peter

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Jane:

I will ponder further your second point and respond soon. I just don't see the first point. I don't think a translation of "to hold" enables the distinction between the situation of the two churches. I don't see the implications you do. It says "thou has there them that hold the doctrine..." Other translations say, "there are some who hold..." and still others, "you have there those who hold..."

Why not just say, "I have a few things against you: that you hold to the doctrine..." - similar to the construction and broad scope of the admonition to the Ephesions: "You [all of them - the whole church] have left your first love..." The constrcution of "you have some/those/ones..." doesn't carry the same scope - i.e. that they all - each and every one - held to the doctrine.

Nevertheless, the Spirit held them accountable. Thus, I think the distinction is more about the nature of the doctrine versus the enticing of Jezabel in Thyatira.

Still, I just don't see the distinction, yet. I found Matt's description of the teaching of Balaam compelling. But it could be condensed down to: the teaching was something that enticed the children of Israel. But put that way, I have an even harder time distinguishing it from the enticing of Jezabel.

Thoughts?

Peter

The one thing we know, Peter, is that God doesn't hold us accountable if we are not accountable. If the Spirit didn't hold them responsible in some way for the "them" in this church, then He would have not required them to repent. At this point, I don't see another way to look at it. (The verse actually says "you hold them there" that hold the doctrine ...). This seems simple enough to me. They clearly didn't hate this doctrine like God did. They should not have had such doctrine among them in the church there. It couldn't have remained there if it hadn't been accepted.

May I ask why the scope of accountability is important to you? The simple thing is to take this letter as one written to individuals in a church calling each of them to repent. If I am guilty of practicing/teaching the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, I need to repent.

I personally have never been on the end demanding others to submit to me, but I have been on the end of submitting to others absolutely. I have repented for this. I have set my heart to submit absolutely to only one person, Jesus. That takes care of the problem for me.

Thankful Jane

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The one thing we know, Peter, is that God doesn't hold us accountable if we are not accountable. If the Spirit didn't hold them responsible in some way for the "them" in this church, then He would have not required them to repent. At this point, I don't see another way to look at it. (The verse actually says "you hold them there" that hold the doctrine ...). This seems simple enough to me. They clearly didn't hate this doctrine like God did. They should not have had such doctrine among them in the church there. It couldn't have remained there if it hadn't been accepted.

May I ask why the scope of accountability is important to you? The simple thing is to take this letter as one written to individuals in a church calling each of them to repent. If I am guilty of practicing/teaching the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, I need to repent.

I personally have never been on the end demanding others to submit to me, but I have been on the end of submitting to others absolutely. I have repented for this. I have set my heart to submit absolutely to only one person, Jesus. That takes care of the problem for me.

Thankful Jane

TJ:

I have felt and feel strongly in agreement with you: he holds us accountable for our specific beliefs in light of the truth to which we have been exposed.

Here’s the problem: given our stupid little heads and fallen nature, we often don’t realize we have failed in our responsibilities to God. Especially when the unhealthy teachings have for soooooo long been couched in Scriptural terms, etc… We may desire to heave out all forms of idolatry from our hearts and beliefs, but may be blind to its existence. This is, in part, why the discussion on whether idolatry can be subtle or whether it is necessarily obvious, is an important discussion. We need to hear something many many times and, finally, only through much fellowship, openness and time in His Word do we finally allow His light to shine and expose our hearts.

But even once we each, individually, assess our accountability and repent accordingly, it is important to understand clearly what the Scripture teaches, even if we are not dealing with our own current problem before God. Especially when it is relates to teaching very very serious matters and serious consequences for believers.

So, back to Revelation:

I agree that there is something about the tolerance of the teachings of Balaam and the Nicolaitans which imbues the whole church in Pergamum with accountability. There is an implication, but not a clear one, that they perhaps allowed this teaching to be held and promulgated by leadership. As you say, it could not have remained unless they tolerated it.

But I see this in Thyatira as well. It wasn’t just practices that crept in. It was teachings. Verse 24 absolves “those who do not hold this teaching…” There was a doctrine present among the church in Thyatira just as it was in Pergamos. And the teaching introduced in Tyatira is arguably closer to idolatry than in Pergamos.

It true that the teaching of Balaam and that of the Nicolaitans did include eating sacrifices to idols. But Balaam sought to bring in anything which would entice Israel – that was his focus. Its known purpose was to entice Israel into corruption by means which Balaam knew were against God. The teachings of the Nicolaitans were similar, though perhaps less starkly ill-intended. It was an extreme usurpation of the gospel in order to bring in a broader group into Christianity while not requiring the purity of the gospel. It was intended to make Christianity easier to believe and practice, because it did not require the restraint of the flesh. But it was still a known and pointed perversion of the gospel Here’s Iraneas on the matter from Against Heresies:

The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols.

Thyatira was different. Jezebel, as far as we can tell – and those who came into Thyatira (Lydia?) – genuinely believed the mixture they brought in. Jezebel believed in Baal and Israel incorporated this belief alongside their belief in God. They weren’t knowingly perverting the truth, they had to be shown the error of their ways by an awesome display of the power of the Lord – See 1 Kings 18:

21Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him."

Furthermore, the mixture was specifically about bringing in idolatry. Where Balaam and the Nicolaitans used any means possible for their ends, which happened to include idolatry, Jezebel specifically brought in worship of pagan gods. But Jezebel genuinely believed this worship to be proper.


So, in short: here’s the distinctions I see:

1) the perversions brought in by Balaam and the Nicolaitans were known to be perversions and were brought in because of that reason

2) the perversions brought in by Balaam and the Nicolaitans weren’t specific unto themselves – they were simply anything and everything that could be brought in to pervert Israel or to broaden “Christianity,” respectively

3) The worship of Baal, on the other hand, was a genuinely held belief brought into Israel and was specifically about idolatry – not just mixture for the sake of mixture.

Now, why these distinctions result in different consequences for the churches in Revelation, I don’t know. Since I didn’t initially see the difference between the errors of the two churches (since the outward behavior was the same), I wanted to determine the distinctions first. The next questions are:

1) do these distinctions hold up?
2) If so, why the different consequences (i.e. scope of accountability) in the two churches?
3) Which, if any, is more applicable to the LC? One? The other? Both? Neither?


Thoughts?

Peter

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

TJ: I have felt and feel strongly in agreement with you: he holds us accountable for our specific beliefs in light of the truth to which we have been exposed...

Peter, I saw your post after my last one. I'm on my way out the door to a tennis team drill to get some much needed exercise!! My brain and fingers on the keyboard have been getting all the exercise lately! I'll respond later today.

I have one thing to say quickly and that is, I don't think the purpose of this exercise is to apply teachings in Revelation to the Local Church as a whole. The LC has all kinds of characteristics. I don't think anything is going to be a perfect overlay for any group. It's the old "if the shoe fits, wear it" saying.

Most importantly, we need to lay hold on our own personal responsibility. That is all for which we will be required to give account. Beyond that we need to grasp enough to understand how to avoid such perversions. We need to be able to recognize those teaching the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes whether we know their motive or intention or not. We need to be able to recognize the doctrine of Balaam and of Jezebel.

If we open our heart to him, He will show us what shoe fits us. If we seek truth to help us stand in freedom, He will surely give it to us.

Gotta run,
TJ

[Thankful Jane]

If we spent as much time talking about the topic as we spend talking about talking about the topic, we might actually be talking about what we are talking about talking about. Sounds like we are getting really close to everybody being ready to talk about what needs to be talked about .....

TJ