Irenaeus: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 23: Line 23:
Nothing is known for certain about the date or circumstances of Ireneaus death.  Some speculate he died of old age, and other speculate that he was martyred in the persecutions under the Roman Emperor Severus.  Irenaeus was said to have been buried under the church of Saint John's in Lyon, but the tomb was destroyed in 1562 by the Calvinist Huguenots.   
Nothing is known for certain about the date or circumstances of Ireneaus death.  Some speculate he died of old age, and other speculate that he was martyred in the persecutions under the Roman Emperor Severus.  Irenaeus was said to have been buried under the church of Saint John's in Lyon, but the tomb was destroyed in 1562 by the Calvinist Huguenots.   


=William Branham disagreed with Irenaeus=
:''So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the '''Nicolaitans''', which thing I hate.<ref>Revelation 2:15 (KJV) </ref>
So, the term “Nicolaitans,” what does it mean?
According to William Branham:
:''Now there are two thoughts on what the Nicolaitanes were. It is said by some that they were a group of apostates who had as their founder, Nicholas of Antioch, a proselyte, who became one of the seven deacons at Jerusalem. They had pagan feasts and were most unchaste in their behaviour. They taught that in order to master sensuality one would have to know by experience the whole range of it at first. Naturally they gave way to such abandon that their degradation was complete. Thus they had applied to them the two Old Testament names that symbolized such extravagances: Balaam and Jezebel. Since Balaam corrupted the people and thus conquered them, it was said that Nicholas did likewise. This group was supposedly forced out of Ephesus and found a place of establishment in Pergamos.
''But the problem about this belief is that it is not true. There is absolutely no history for it. It is at best tradition. To adopt such a view would make the church age of Ephesus absolutely historical with no bearing upon today. This is not true, for whatever starts in the early church must continue in every age until it is finally blessed and exalted by God or destroyed as an unclean thing in the lake of fire. That this tradition is actually against Scripture, simply note that in Revelation 2:2, the Ephesian Church could NOT BEAR the evil ones. They thus had to put them out, or it would not make sense to say they could not bear them. If they did not put them out, then they were bearing them. Now in verse six, it says that they hated their deeds. So this Nicolaitane group remained a part of the first age, doing their deeds. The deeds were hated, but the people were not rendered impotent. Thus we see seeds in Ephesus that will continue and will become a doctrine that will go right up to, and into, the lake of fire.<ref>EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.3</ref>
Clarence Larkin was of the view that:
:''They were not a sect, but a party in the Church who were trying to establish a “Priestly Order.” Probably trying to model the Church after the Old Testament order of Priests, Levites, and common people. This is seen in the meaning of the word, which is from “Niko” to conquer, to overthrow, and “Laos” the people or laity. The object was to establish a “holy Order of Men,” and place them over the laity, which was foreign to the New Testament plan, and call them not pastors, but – Clergy, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, Popes.<ref>Clarence Larkin, “The Book of Revelation,” Chapter 2.</ref>
And Irenaeus position was as follow:
:''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. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou has, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.<ref>Irenaeus, “Against Heresies”, Chapter 26.</ref>
So, given that William Branham’s interpretation agrees with that previously espoused by Larkin, but disagrees with that given by Irenaeus, there are a couple of points to consider.
#Why did William Branham [[Plagiarism|adopt the view of Larkin]], as he did for so much of his dispensational teachings?
#Why would the seventh church age messenger (as William Branham thought himself) differ from the second church age messenger (which is who William Branham stated that Irenaeus was)?
#Given that Irenaeus was born somewhere around 125 AD and wrote “Against Heresies” somewhere around 180 AD and spent a large portion of his life studying the issues, would not his assertion that this was a group of people who followed practices of a literal man named Nicolas carry some validity?  William Branham says that the view of Irenaeus is a tradition at best, so had Ireneaus started or adhered to such a tradition so soon after the book of Revelation was given? That would hardly seem appropriate for “the messenger of that hour” (as William Branham said that he was).
#Given Irenaeus’ view that this was a group of people following a literal man named Nicolas, would this not indicate that he viewed the writings of Revelation as literal instructions to a literal church in Asia Minor, rather than a dispensational prophecy?
#William Branham rejected the view of Irenaeus (in the Church Age Book), because such a view would be contradictory to dispensational theology. In fact, is there any evidence that the early church or the church in general adhered to a dispensational interpretation of the church ages before John Darby in the 1800s, who is generally known as “The Father of Dispensationalism,” and influenced Scofield who heavily influenced both Clarence Larkin and William Branham?


=Against Heresies=
=Against Heresies=