What IS "sound doctrine".

[Harvest 1874]

The dissection of the Greek name by modern "scholars" is wrong. It is not academic, it is written in scripture. There was actually a guy named Nicolas who was the leader of this group and is spoken of by Eusebus, concerning the Nicolas of Acts 6:5, and who was closer in history to the doctrine, so I will trust him to know the facts. There is the connection to Balaam, that is the clue that shows what this doctrine is about - sex. In fact, rape. Not power over the people. It was what Paul spoke against. "Shall we sin so grace may abound?" That is exactly the message of the Nicolaitans. In short, he believed that Jesus did not come in the flesh, but only in spirit, and only sins of the spirit were sins. Therefore, sins of the flesh were not sins at all - 1 John 1:8. Nicolas instructed that they were to rape each other's wives every day to have grace. This is the false doctrine of 1 John 4:1-3 that Ephesus was fighting against, and Pergamos adopted, but not Thyatira.

The Jezebel of Thyatira was the ancient pagan Babylon mystery religion that turned into "holy traditions" in the RCC and Orthodox churches concerning Mary and the baby Jesus, to this very day. Again, it had nothing to do with "power over the laity" that has been speculated.

But, at least, we are on the same page that the letters to the seven churches was more than one dimensional as some ignorantly believe, but are prophetic.

What I would really like to know is what are your thoughts on Sardis? You can PM me if you like.

Unfortunately I believe you are looking at this from the literalist point of view rather than from that in which it was intended, the symbolic point of view. Remember the book of Revelation is a symbolic prophecy it is NOT to be read as though it were a statement of facts, but rather as a statement of symbols. This has led you to make the same mistake with regards to Jezebel and the connection the Lord would have us see between her and the apostate church.

Generally I don’t like jumping ahead in a study, but seeing as it was my plan all alone when we had finished our (blog) study on the Introductions of the Seven Churches, Seals and Trumpets to skip the first five stages and move on to the Sixth and Seventh stages which are of much greater importance to us here at the end of the age than the first five I will briefly explain our understanding of Verses 14 and 15 of Revelation Chapter 2 with regards to our Lord’s letter to the Church of Pergamos.

Revelation Chapter 2

VERSE 14 “But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.”

BUT I HAVE A FEW THINGS AGAINST YOU:

This phrase “against you” and the “repent’ of Verse 16 suggest that the brethren of the time might have been falling into a defensive posture rather than an offensive one. They may have not openly criticized the growing apostasy with sufficient vigor. The true saints were, in this period, without question outnumbered and out-powered. It would have been easy and natural to begin a retreat. But the Lord was not pleased to see this in his saints.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE THERE THOSE WHO HOLD THE DOCTRINE OF BALAAM, WHO TAUGHT BALAK TO PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL:

A reading of Num 22-25 and 31:13-16 will be helpful in understanding this lesson.

While the “doctrine of Balaam” usually refers to catering to the flesh with material rewards of pleasure, it is important to dig a little deeper here.

Balaam proposed to Balak a non-sanctioned marriage of Moabite daughters to Jews which, among other things, resulted in adultery and idolatry. Thus, the type here of a marriage of the Lord’s people to subjects of a gentile king has its antitype in the attempt to marry Christians to the state. This was a real stumbling-block for Christians who might be tempted to do so as they recalled the terrible persecutions of the previous period when church and state were enemies.

The “children of Israel” in the type are the “Jews” of Revelation which represent Christians.

TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS:

What was the proposed idolatry? It was the union of church and state.

What was being SACRIFICED to accomplish this? The truth pronounced in the Scriptures which forbids such a union.

The saints were being asked to eat (swallow) the twisting (sacrificing) of Scripture in order to live under the new idolatrous order of things and, thereby…

TO COMMIT SEXUAL IMMORALITY: (FORNICATION).

THIS was the point of the religious rulers from the beginning of the Pergamos period. They wanted Christians to give in to the church-state union arrangement.

VERSE 15 “Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”

THUS YOU ALSO HAVE THOSE WHO HOLD THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANS:

Several lessons appear in this verse. The word THUS is important. It links this verse to the previous verse. NICOLAITANS is a Greek equivalent of BALAAMITES.

Jesus is INTERPRETING Verse 14. He is telling us that the struggle for power and influence shown by Balaam in his desire for cooperation between Israel and Balak IS THE SAME as the Church “rulers” who want cooperation between church and state.

This verse says “THUS” you also have SOME . . .”

SOME is not YOU; it is THEM.

We now have a very clear division between what Daniel calls the HOST class (the “tares”) and the SANCTUARY class (the “wheat”). This division first occurred in Rev 2:9 (between YOU, the wheat, true Christians, and “THOSE who say they are Jews (Christians) and are not”), but here it is more obvious. With the clergy system now firmly entrenched, the doctrine of LORDSHIP (Nicolaitans) is a permanent feature of Christian life.

Unfortunately due to my tight schedule and the various projects I am presently working on most especially my ongoing study of Revelation, and the introductions of the seven Churches, Seals and Trumpets as well as my other ongoing study of Matthew 24 and The Baptism of the Holy Spirit study I find myself hard pressed for time and may not be able to get back with you on Sardis at this time. I’m not good at brief outlines, I’m a detail person, what’s that old saying, “the devil is in the details”, well for me it’s, “the truth is in the details”, details are what makes or breaks a study, nevertheless should I find the time (if it is truly important to you, and not mere curiosity) I will make the attempt.

However out of courtesy it would be advisable to start your on thread on the subject rather than "high-jack" this one.

 

[FHII]

Aww my Goodness, Helen... What have you done? You done opened a Pandora's box.

Coming up with a definition of "sound doctrine" is a tough task, but it can be done and agreed upon. Actually coming up with sound doctrine is much harder, if not impossible.

See, when we discuss Bible doctrine the are a some things I would insist on. Eccesiastes tells us to hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4 says to live by EVERY word of God. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

But the problem always comes about when trying to weigh the importance of scripture. People know to listen to all scripture, but in an attempt to harmonize it to their belief, they tend to shrug off some scripture by offering complex interpretations.

Example: God is love. That is scripture. Esau have I hated. That is scripture. The doctrine that God loves everyone is challenged. So people turn to Strong's and redefine "hate" as "loved less".

In that case,it ain't so... But that's beyond the scope of what I am getting at.

You are never going to arrive at truly sound doctrine until you lose your mind. Yea, that's funny, but I am serious. What I mean is you have to forget all your premonitions about God and read the scripture with a virgin mind.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Reading Athanasius’ ‘Against the Heathen’ and his follow up ‘On the Incarnation’ is a good way to learn what sound doctrine looks like. Athanasuis was a key theologian in the 4th century, responsible for articulating the doctrine of the Trinity and describing the incarnation of Christ as fully human and fully God. He was instrumental in stopping the Arian heresy from corrupting orthodoxy.

He also wrote an interesting biography of St. Antony who was an early hermit - the book popularized a movement away from the cities into the desert which led to monasticism. Moving out to the desert to live a life of complete devotion to God was a sort of substitute for martyrdom after Christianity became legalized and persecution ended. The desert was seen as a sort of death.

At Nicaea did the bishops in general believe that the Son was equal to God? No, there were competing points of view. For example, one was represented by Arius, who taught that the Son had a finite beginning in time and was therefore not equal to God but was subordinate in all respects. Athanasius, on the other hand, believed that the Son was equal to God in a certain way. And there were other views.

to assert that the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. established or affirmed the Trinity doctrine is not true. What later became the Trinity teaching was not in existence at the time. The idea that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were each true God and equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom, yet but one God—a three-in-one God—was not developed by that council nor by earlier Church Fathers. As The Church of the First Three Centuries states:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ.

We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first three ages, who held this [Trinity] doctrine in the modern sense.”⁠

The book Second Century Orthodoxy, by J. A. Buckley, notes:

“Up until the end of the second century at least, the universal Church remained united in one basic sense; they all accepted the supremacy of the Father. They all regarded God the Father Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without beginning. .

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Unfortunately I believe you are looking at this from the literalist point of view rather than from that in which it was intended, the symbolic point of view. Remember the book of Revelation is a symbolic prophecy it is NOT to be read as though it were a statement of facts, but rather as a statement of symbols. This has led you to make the same mistake with regards to Jezebel and the connection the Lord would have us see between her and the apostate church.

Generally I don’t like jumping ahead in a study, but seeing as it was my plan all alone when we had finished our (blog) study on the Introductions of the Seven Churches, Seals and Trumpets to skip the first five stages and move on to the Sixth and Seventh stages which are of much greater importance to us here at the end of the age than the first five I will briefly explain our understanding of Verses 14 and 15 of Revelation Chapter 2 with regards to our Lord’s letter to the Church of Pergamos.

Revelation Chapter 2

VERSE 14 “But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.”

BUT I HAVE A FEW THINGS AGAINST YOU:

This phrase “against you” and the “repent’ of Verse 16 suggest that the brethren of the time might have been falling into a defensive posture rather than an offensive one. They may have not openly criticized the growing apostasy with sufficient vigor. The true saints were, in this period, without question outnumbered and out-powered. It would have been easy and natural to begin a retreat. But the Lord was not pleased to see this in his saints.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE THERE THOSE WHO HOLD THE DOCTRINE OF BALAAM, WHO TAUGHT BALAK TO PUT A STUMBLING BLOCK BEFORE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL:

A reading of Num 22-25 and 31:13-16 will be helpful in understanding this lesson.

While the “doctrine of Balaam” usually refers to catering to the flesh with material rewards of pleasure, it is important to dig a little deeper here.

Balaam proposed to Balak a non-sanctioned marriage of Moabite daughters to Jews which, among other things, resulted in adultery and idolatry. Thus, the type here of a marriage of the Lord’s people to subjects of a gentile king has its antitype in the attempt to marry Christians to the state. This was a real stumbling-block for Christians who might be tempted to do so as they recalled the terrible persecutions of the previous period when church and state were enemies.

The “children of Israel” in the type are the “Jews” of Revelation which represent Christians.

TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS:

What was the proposed idolatry? It was the union of church and state.

What was being SACRIFICED to accomplish this? The truth pronounced in the Scriptures which forbids such a union.

The saints were being asked to eat (swallow) the twisting (sacrificing) of Scripture in order to live under the new idolatrous order of things and, thereby…

TO COMMIT SEXUAL IMMORALITY: (FORNICATION).

THIS was the point of the religious rulers from the beginning of the Pergamos period. They wanted Christians to give in to the church-state union arrangement.

VERSE 15 “Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.”

THUS YOU ALSO HAVE THOSE WHO HOLD THE DOCTRINE OF THE NICOLAITANS:

Several lessons appear in this verse. The word THUS is important. It links this verse to the previous verse. NICOLAITANS is a Greek equivalent of BALAAMITES.

Jesus is INTERPRETING Verse 14. He is telling us that the struggle for power and influence shown by Balaam in his desire for cooperation between Israel and Balak IS THE SAME as the Church “rulers” who want cooperation between church and state.

This verse says “THUS” you also have SOME . . .”

SOME is not YOU; it is THEM.

We now have a very clear division between what Daniel calls the HOST class (the “tares”) and the SANCTUARY class (the “wheat”). This division first occurred in Rev 2:9 (between YOU, the wheat, true Christians, and “THOSE who say they are Jews (Christians) and are not”), but here it is more obvious. With the clergy system now firmly entrenched, the doctrine of LORDSHIP (Nicolaitans) is a permanent feature of Christian life.

Unfortunately due to my tight schedule and the various projects I am presently working on most especially my ongoing study of Revelation, and the introductions of the seven Churches, Seals and Trumpets as well as my other ongoing study of Matthew 24 and The Baptism of the Holy Spirit study I find myself hard pressed for time and may not be able to get back with you on Sardis at this time. I’m not good at brief outlines, I’m a detail person, what’s that old saying, “the devil is in the details”, well for me it’s, “the truth is in the details”, details are what makes or breaks a study, nevertheless should I find the time (if it is truly important to you, and not mere curiosity) I will make the attempt.

However out of courtesy it would be advisable to start your on thread on the subject rather than "high-jack" this one.

I am looking at it symbolically. But it is accurate symbolism based on facts. I'm not sure what you are going on about unless you are just not used to someone not agreeing with you, but we should just end this. You've got your mind made up on speculations, so don't let facts get in your way.

 

[aspen]

At Nicaea did the bishops in general believe that the Son was equal to God? No, there were competing points of view. For example, one was represented by Arius, who taught that the Son had a finite beginning in time and was therefore not equal to God but was subordinate in all respects. Athanasius, on the other hand, believed that the Son was equal to God in a certain way. And there were other views.

to assert that the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. established or affirmed the Trinity doctrine is not true. What later became the Trinity teaching was not in existence at the time. The idea that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were each true God and equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom, yet but one God—a three-in-one God—was not developed by that council nor by earlier Church Fathers. As The Church of the First Three Centuries states:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ.

We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first three ages, who held this [Trinity] doctrine in the modern sense.”⁠

The book Second Century Orthodoxy, by J. A. Buckley, notes:

“Up until the end of the second century at least, the universal Church remained united in one basic sense; they all accepted the supremacy of the Father. They all regarded God the Father Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without beginning. .

Where did I mention the council of Nicaea?

 

[Harvest 1874]

I am looking at it symbolically. But it is accurate symbolism based on facts. I'm not sure what you are going on about unless you are just not used to someone not agreeing with you, but we should just end this. You've got your mind made up on speculations, so don't let facts get in your way.

What we have provided can be attested by history. History is prophecy fulfilled, and no you're not looking at it symbolically in fact you're not even looking at it spiritually you're looking at it through the eyes of the natural man.

 

[Enoch111]

Actually coming up with sound doctrine is much harder, if not impossible.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Ephesians 4:4-6 is a good place to start.

There is one Body,
and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in
one hope of your calling;
One Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
One God and Father of all,
who is above all,
and through all,
and in you all.

 

[Helen]

Aww my Goodness, Helen... What have you done? You done opened a Pandora's box.

Coming up with a definition of "sound doctrine" is a tough task, but it can be done and agreed upon. Actually coming up with sound doctrine is much harder, if not impossible.

See, when we discuss Bible doctrine the are a some things I would insist on. Eccesiastes tells us to hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4 says to live by EVERY word of God. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

But the problem always comes about when trying to weigh the importance of scripture. People know to listen to all scripture, but in an attempt to harmonize it to their belief, they tend to shrug off some scripture by offering complex interpretations.

Example: God is love. That is scripture. Esau have I hated. That is scripture. The doctrine that God loves everyone is challenged. So people turn to Strong's and redefine "hate" as "loved less".

In that case,it ain't so... But that's beyond the scope of what I am getting at.

You are never going to arrive at truly sound doctrine until you lose your mind. Yea, that's funny, but I am serious. What I mean is you have to forget all your premonitions about God and read the scripture with a virgin mind.

Good post. Thanks.

And I agree. At my age I find it hard to even read the bible without 'knowing' what it is saying,. ie , to approach it and read it as if I have never read it at all, and allow the Lord to speak fresh things...very hard.

I think I will just stick with - 1) Jesus Christ Son of God and living Word, crucified. 2) Raised from the dead.
3 ) seated at the right hand of Father our intercessor. .. and the two love commands Jesus left with us. Other than that...I hold most "doctrines" suspect as added to by men. I love all Pauls books and and read them more than anything else.

I can feel safe within those parameters.

Bless you...H

 

[FHII]

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Ephesians 4:4-6 is a good place to start.

There is one Body,
and one Spirit,
even as ye are called in
one hope of your calling;
One Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
One God and Father of all,
who is above all,
and through all,
and in you all.

Your post is testimony to the reason why. Eph 4 is wonderful. I have no disagreement with it. The problem is you didn't seem to have understood what I was getting at. You cannot make sound doctrine on one verse or set of verses alone.

Did you not read that man should not live on bread alone, but by EVERY word of God?

I arrived at that conclusion because I take Luke 4:4 seriously. Absolutely Eph 4:4-6 is good. But that's not all there is.

Even you yourself said it is a good starting point. But it is only a starting point.

Sound doctrine is every word of God. When you have every word of God figured out, then you can question me on how I came to the conclusion that it is much harder than just defining the parameters of what sound doctrine is, and if it is indeed possible.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Where did I mention the council of Nicaea?

You said: Athanaius was a theologian in the 4th century, responsible for articulating the doctrine of the Trinity and describing the incarnation of Christ as fully human and fully God. He was instrumental in stopping the Arian heresy from corrupting orthodoxy.

Well Athanaius articulated the Trinity at Nicea. I was simply letting you know that the modern trinity doctrine that people believe in today wasn't what Athanaius articulated. So which is sound doctrine? The doctrine Athanaius articulated at Nicea in the 4th century or the modern doctrine they have today, cause they're not the same.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

What we have provided can be attested by history. History is prophecy fulfilled, and no you're not looking at it symbolically in fact you're not even looking at it spiritually you're looking at it through the eyes of the natural man.

You are not unique in your theory, it is the same natural man dissection of a word as what so called scholars say, but it has no spiritual fortitude, and thus not what Jesus meant.

This has to do with SIN, not some silly power over the people. It is what was SPIRITUALLY important to JESUS! And thus, important to me.

Speaking of the OP and "sound doctrine," do you believe Jesus was a created being, or had no beginning the same as the case of the Father God?

 

[Harvest 1874]

You are not unique in your theory, it is the same natural man dissection of a word as what so called scholars say, but it has no spiritual fortitude, and thus not what Jesus meant.

This has to do with SIN, not some silly power over the people. It is what was SPIRITUALLY important to JESUS! And thus, important to me.

You are free to believe as you wish on this issue it has no bearing on one’s salvation.

Speaking of the OP and "sound doctrine," do you believe Jesus was a created being, or had no beginning the same as the case of the Father God?

I will allow the Scriptures themselves to answer this question.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8)

That is to say, according to the LORD, The God, The Almighty, Who is, and who was, and who is to come, I (Jesus) am the Alpha and the Omega.

The Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the first and the last word on all issues of doctrine, the only direct creation of God.

“These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.” (Rev 3:14)

This statement stands in contrast to the Scriptural declaration that the Father that is the Almighty Himself is from everlasting to everlasting, that he never had a beginning; he always was. (Psa 90:2)

 

[1stCenturyLady]

You are free to believe as you wish on this issue it has no bearing on one’s salvation.

Sin has a great bearing on one's salvation. Those who have sin, do not have Jesus. Those who have Jesus do not sin.

direct creation of God

You didn't quote scripture there, so I assume you are making up that Jesus was a created being by the Father.

I've heard enough.

 

[Enoch111]

Sound doctrine is every word of God.

Sound doctrine IS DERIVED from every word of God. And Christians have been deriving sound doctrine from Scripture ever since the Church was established. If it was *impossible* to do so, Paul would not have urged Christians to hold fast to sound doctrine.

 

[FHII]

Sound doctrine IS DERIVED from every word of God. And Christians have been deriving sound doctrine from Scripture ever since the Church was established. If it was *impossible* to do so, Paul would not have urged Christians to hold fast to sound doctrine.

They've been arguing about for just as long.

 

[Enoch111]

They've been arguing about for just as long.

So let's all throw up our hands and just give up?

 

[Harvest 1874]

Sin has a great bearing on one's salvation. Those who have sin, no not have Jesus. Those who have Jesus do not sin.

Yes its true that we are to admit (confess) our sin, that we should seek forgiveness through Christ, but it is not a sin for one to misunderstand a particular doctrine, especially one which has no bearing on ones salvation.

You didn't quote scripture there, so I assume you are making up that Jesus was a created being by the Father.

I think you need to go back and read it again, perhaps this time put your glasses on. Three prominent scriptures were quoted relating to the issue, Rev 1:8; 3:14 and Psa 90:2

I've heard enough.

Of course you have, that is because the truth is pricking at your conscious and your preconceived ideas on the issue. The darkness (error) hates the light (truth).

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Yes its true that we are to admit (confess) our sin, that we should seek forgiveness through Christ, but it is not a sin for one to misunderstand a particular doctrine, especially one which has no bearing on ones salvation.



I think you need to go back and read it again, perhaps this time put your glasses on. Three prominent scriptures were quoted relating to the issue, Rev 1:8; 3:14 and Psa 90:2



Of course you have, that is because the truth is pricking at your conscious and your preconceived ideas on the issue. The darkness (error) hates the light (truth).

No I just get tired of blatant ignorance. And I hate the damage done over the centuries by false teachers. You are a victim and don't even know it.

Verses that describe Jesus as the Creator? You twist to say He is the Created. Pure brainwashing.

 

[brakelite]

And I agree. At my age I find it hard to even read the bible without 'knowing' what it is saying,. ie , to approach it and read it as if I have never read it at all, and allow the Lord to speak fresh things...very hard.

The Bible is like a diamond mine. There are some gems on the surface, and they are easy to pick up. Then, after a bit of scratching around, moving a bit of top soil this way and that, a few more gems are uncovered. Maybe some sapphires along with the diamonds. Dig deeper, and the real good stuff appears. That takes time, effort, and continual communion with the Author. And eventually, after burning a few late hours, and being caught playing with fire, we will strike the lodestone...pure gold tried in the fire...and we discover that all along we were learning about Jesus, and by beholding, we have become changed. And we discover something else. Reading and learning of Him wasn't for the sake of education or to earn a PhD or impress one another with our 'sound doctrine'...it was for our sanctification...those fires we went through were cleansing fires...consuming fires...that when Jesus comes, we may stand unashamed and rightly clothed.

 

[Episkopos]

I believe this speaks to sound doctrine...

A man went to church. He forgot to switchoff [sic} and his phone rang during prayer. The pastor scolded him. The worshippers admonished him after prayers for interrupting the silence. His wife kept on lecturing him on his carelessness all the way home. One could see the shame, embarrassment and humiliation on his face. After all this, he never stepped foot in the church again.

AND

That evening, he went to a bar. He was still nervous and trembling. He spilled his drink on the table by accident. The waiter apologized and gave him a napkin to clean himself. The janitor mopped the floor. The female manager offered him a complimentary drink. She also gave him a huge hug and a peck while saying, “Don’t worry man. Who doesn’t make mistakes?”. He has not stopped going to that bar since then.

Lesson: Sometimes our attitude as believers drives souls to Hell. You can make a difference by how you treat people, especially when they make mistakes.