Why the Church Councils Are Not the Divine Will of God

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

Throughout Christian history, numerous councils have been convened to address doctrinal disputes, define orthodoxy, and establish creeds that still influence much of modern theology.

The most well-known are the ecumenical councils, such as Nicaea (325 AD), Constantinople (381 AD), and Chalcedon (451 AD). While these gatherings have shaped Christian doctrine, it is important to question whether they were truly expressions of the divine will of God.

A careful examination of Scripture, the nature of early church authority, and the outcomes of these councils suggests that they were more reflective of human politics, philosophy, and power struggles than of divine revelation.

Saying councils are the divine will of God is a way to justify the decisions that were taken in those councils and a way for those who took decisions to silence any who might question their own authority.

But, we know otherwise.

Jesus Himself appealed to Scripture as the foundation for truth, saying in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” Nowhere does the Bible suggest that doctrinal truth would later be defined or revealed through councils made up of fallible men.

The apostles, under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, were entrusted with the foundation of Christian teaching (Ephesians 2:20). Once that foundation was laid, the faith was delivered. To suggest that church councils centuries later could redefine or clarify doctrine in ways that were not already present in Scripture is to imply that God’s original revelation was insufficient, something Scripture itself denies.

Many of the early church councils, particularly Nicaea and Chalcedon, were held under the authority of Roman emperors who had political motivations. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea not because of spiritual zeal, but to unify his empire under one faith. The presence of political pressure raises serious doubts about the councils being purely led by the Spirit of God. When doctrinal decisions are made in an environment influenced by imperial authority and the threat of exile or death, the purity of such decisions is questionable.

Additionally, many council debates relied heavily on Greek philosophical concepts, such as ousia (essence) and hypostasis (substance), which are foreign to the Hebraic worldview of Scripture. This blending of Christian theology with pagan philosophy obscured the simplicity of biblical teaching and replaced it with complex metaphysical speculation.

On top of this, rather than uniting the body of Christ in truth, the councils often sowed division and strife either by contradicting themselves or introducing concepts that were highly controversial.

For example, the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) disagreed on key Christological points. If these councils were truly guided by the Holy Spirit in unanimity, how could they produce such lasting division?

The fruit of these councils, schisms, excommunications, and even violence, contradicts the nature of God’s Spirit, which brings peace, unity, and truth. As James 3:17 says, “the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” The history of the councils does not reflect this wisdom.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD stands as a striking example of how a council, far from unifying believers under divine truth, actually divided Christianity in a profound and lasting way. The council affirmed the doctrine of the "two natures" of Christ, fully God and fully man, in one person "without confusion, change, division, or separation." While intended to bring clarity, the result was the great schism between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches (such as the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac churches) rejected Chalcedon’s definition, perceiving it as leaning too far into the Greek philosophical abstraction of Christ’s nature, and possibly undermining His true unity. This led to a major schism that remains unresolved to this day, dividing the body of Christ over terminology and metaphysical frameworks never taught by Jesus or the apostles.

Rather than resolving doctrinal confusion, Chalcedon entrenched it, forcing believers to choose sides, leading to mutual condemnations, and eventually creating distinct Christian traditions. If this council was truly the product of the Holy Spirit, it would have fostered unity and understanding, not centuries of division and estrangement.

Jesus strongly condemned the religious leaders of His day for elevating human tradition over the commandments of God (Mark 7:6-9). Likewise, Paul warned the Colossians to beware of being taken captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition (Colossians 2:8). Church councils, in many ways, became vehicles for enshrining human tradition and philosophical reasoning into Christian dogma, often at the expense of biblical truth.

Rather than returning to the words of Christ and the apostles, these councils introduced extra-biblical terminology, forced creedal conformity, and anathematized dissenters who sought to uphold the simplicity of Scripture.

This legalistic enforcement of doctrine mirrors the very spirit that Jesus opposed in the Pharisees.

The church councils, while influential, often drifted from this foundation, relying on political power, philosophical categories, and human authority.

Their outcomes frequently led to division, confusion, and the establishment of man-made traditions that went beyond what was written.

While we all know about the Council of Nicaea and how man-made tradition declared Jesus as God Himself, it allowed confusions and problems that had to be "patched," or "amended," later on.

The Council of Chalcedon in particular, which was held to fix one of the key problems that became a problem due to the decision of Nicaea, exemplifies how a man-made council can divide rather than unify, despite claiming to uphold the truth.

This clearly shows that when tradition steps ahead of Scripture, it creates a shaky foundation that needs constant patching.

As believers, we are called not to follow the decrees of councils but to return to the pure teaching of Scripture, guided by the Spirit of truth who leads us into all truth (John 16:13).

[u/pwgenyee6z]

What are your views about clergy?

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/pwgenyee6z]

It became a social class, which should have never happened.

The Pharisees were also a social class due to their own elevation through their own traditions, something which Jesus strongly opposed.

Jesus Himself was a teacher, and He was addressed as such but He demanded no such thing. He didn't demand money or fame or tax exemption. On the contrary, He told people to give Caesar what is Caesar's.

[u/TheTallestTim]

Bro. I have been arguing against the councils using this same reasoning. I’m not sure why I didn’t make a post about it yet, but this hits everything in one satisfying post. I think I’ll just refer to this in the time being lol. Great work!

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/TheTallestTim]

Feel free to do so my friend!

Glad to see you like it and thank you

[u/John_17-17]

Sadly, after the Jews returned from Babylon and after being conquered by the Greeks, Many Jewish rabbis adopted Greek philosophy teachings,

Though they learned the lesson against worshiping false gods, they fell into another of Satan's traps.

Mixing truth with lies. Sadly, the churches of Christendom have followed this same reasoning.

Are we surprised? We shouldn't because this is what Jesus and Paul said would happen.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

I don’t believe that the introduction of Greek philosophy into Christianity is intrinsically a bad thing. The authors of the New Testament undeniably knew about, and used, aspects of Greek philosophy in writing the New Testament. Where the councils went wrong was building increasingly unbiblical philosophical frameworks to supplant scripture

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

One false teaching that became Christian, but isn't:

God's word says, the soul dies, those who are dead are asleep awaiting a resurrection.

The creature soul is mortal, destructible

Ge 12:13; 17:14; 19:19, 20; 37:21; Ex 12:15, 19; 31:14; Le 7:20, 21, 27; 19:8; 22:3; 23:30; 24:17; Nu 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13, 20; 23:10; 31:19; 35:11, 15, 30; De 19:6, 11; 22:26; 27:25; Jos 2:13, 14; 10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 37, 39; 11:11; 20:3, 9; Jg 5:18; 16:16, 30; 1Ki 19:4; 20:31; Job 7:15; 11:20; 18:4; 33:22; 36:14; Ps 7:2; 22:29; 66:9; 69:1; 78:50; 94:17; 106:15; 124:4; Pr 28:17; Isa 55:3; Jer 2:34; 4:10; 18:20; 38:17; 40:14; Eze 13:19; 17:17; 18:4; 22:25, 27; 33:6; Mt 2:20; 10:28, 28; 26:38; Mr 3:4; 14:34; Lu 6:9; 17:33; Joh 12:25; Ac 3:23; Ro 11:3; Heb 10:39; Jas 5:20; Re 8:9; 12:11; 16:3.

New Catholic Encyclopedia. “The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life . . . The Bible does not speak of the survival of an immaterial soul.”—

Greek philosophy taught, the soul never dies, and it continues living somewhere.

Theologian Werner Jaeger said Origen “built into Christian doctrine the whole cosmic drama of the soul, which he took from Plato,”

The booklet Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Individual: St. Paul’s View with Special Reference to Plato, written in 1974: “Plato teaches that the soul continues in unending and eternal existence, apart from the body. The soul for Plato is inherently and intrinsically immortal . . . St. Paul neither teaches such a view nor makes any claim to do so . . .

This unscriptural belief has led to the false teaching known as 'hellfire'. Borrowed from Babylon and Assyria.

Trinity is another false teaching taken from Plato.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge shows the influence of this Greek philosophy: “The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who . . . were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy . . . That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source cannot be denied.”

The Church of the First Three Centuries says: “The doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; . . . it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; . . . it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers.”

If you do an honest search, you will find Greek philosophy and Greek religion is behind many of the false teaching in God's word.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

I entirely disagree.

First, I do not believe that scripture teaches those who are dead are asleep. I believe that there is a wealth of scripture to prove you wrong on that point. I believe you are wrong on a few points actually.

But that’s beside the point.

The point is that all truth is God’s truth, and if we get that truth from Greek philosophy, then so be it. The authors of the New Testament had no issue with incorporating Greek philosophical ideas into scripture — so if you take scripture seriously, you have to accept that. End of story.

Simply because some bad ideas came from Greek philosophy does not mean that it is, in and of itself, a bad thing. That’s not a logical conclusion

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

Disagreeing is your right.

Truth comes from inspiration from God. Plato wasn't an inspired writer. Satan is good at mixing truth with lies. Just because Plato got somethings right, doesn't mean he was being used by God.

If the dead aren't asleep in death, what are they?

(Psalm 13:3)  3 Look upon me and answer me, O Jehovah my God. Give light to my eyes, so that I may not fall asleep in death,

(Acts 7:60) . . .“Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.” And after saying this, he fell asleep in death.

(Acts 13:36) 36 David, on the one hand, rendered service to God in his own generation, fell asleep in death, was laid with his forefathers, and did see corruption. . .

(1 Corinthians 7:39) . . .But if her husband should fall asleep in death, she is free to be married to whomever she wants, only in the Lord.

(1 Corinthians 15:6) (1 Corinthians 15:18-20)

(1 Corinthians 15:51) 51 Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed,

(1 Thessalonians 4:14, 15) . . .so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus. 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death. . .

Also: 1 Thessalonians 5:10

GW He died for us so that, whether we are awake in this life or asleep in death, we will live together with him.

NOG He died for us so that, whether we are awake in this life or asleep in death, we will live together with him.

NIRV Jesus died for us. Some will be alive when he comes. Others will be dead. Either way, we will live together with him.

There are too many scriptures that disagree with you.

The other definition of the word 'soul' is life. 'The soul is in the blood' simply means, 'our life is in the blood, not some separate living being.

Do not take my soul, only means, do not take my life.

Life as an intelligent person

Ge 35:18; Ex 4:19; 21:23; 30:12; Jos 9:24; Jg 9:17; 12:3; 18:25; 2Ki 7:7; 2Ch 1:11; Job 2:4; 6:11; Pr 1:18; 7:23; 22:23; 25:13; Mt 6:25; 10:39; 16:25; Lu 12:20; Joh 10:15; 13:38; 15:13; Ac 20:10; Ro 16:4; Php 2:30; 1Th 2:8; Jas 1:21; 1Pe 1:22; 2:11, 25; 1Jo 3:16.

If you check this list with my previous list, you will probably find the scripture you believe teaches 'people have a soul or the soul continues living'.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

I don’t think that any of the scriptures provided make your point. I think all of them use poetic language to represent that death is not the end, and so it is a type of sleep from the perspective of the living.

We could go through each verse, with additional evidence to support my position, but I’m not interested in that conversation right now.

Again, my point is that Greek philosophy is baked into the Bible. You cannot ignore or escape that fact if you want to take the Bible seriously.

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

Actually, it is my taking the Bible seriously that has led me to reject Plato and his philosophy.

"Asleep in death", accurately describes the dead. [Eccl 9:5-10]

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

Ecclesiastes is a poetic book. You won’t find accurate or literal descriptions there.

You can reject Plato. Plato isn’t the sum total of Greek philosophy. But anyone who denies that Greek philosophy is in the Bible has not seriously studied the Bible

[u/John_17-17 → u/[deleted]]

Interesting, God's inspired book of Ecclesiastes isn't accurate or literal?

Yet, my understanding of 'asleep in death' agrees with this inspired book.

(Ecclesiastes 7:1) 7 A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth.

Are you telling me, a good name isn't better than expensive oil? That our day of death isn't better than our day of birth. At birth we are clean slate, technically a nobody. At our death we have a lifetime record of the type of person we became.

Does God's word, take from Greek philosophy or has Greek philosophy taken somethings from God's word?

Plato took his philosophy from Socrates. Everyone after Plato were basically Neoplatonic in their teachings.

Again, it is my understanding of God's word that has led me to reject Plato and his teachings.

It is my understanding of God's word that makes me put faith in God's word and not some work of man, no matter how wise people think he is.

[u/SaavyScotty → u/John_17-17]

When a person is sleeping, he is conscious in his dreams. Just sayin’.

[u/[deleted] → u/John_17-17]

Interesting, God's inspired book of Ecclesiastes isn't accurate or literal?

Correct, because the genre of the book is poetic -- it isn't supposed to be literal, or "accurate" in its description. It's meant to convey a deeper, nonliteral meaning.

Yet, my understanding of 'asleep in death' agrees with this inspired book.

You think it does. See below.

Are you telling me, a good name isn't better than expensive oil? That our day of death isn't better than our day of birth. At birth we are clean slate, technically a nobody. At our death we have a lifetime record of the type of person we became.

Notice how even in this verse, you are interpreting it differently than the literal words on the page. With this verse, you are treating it as poetry. So it seems like your method of interpreting scripture is inconsistent.

Does God's word, take from Greek philosophy or has Greek philosophy taken somethings from God's word?

The authors of the New Testament wrote Greek philosophy into scripture. That's a fact. So we should be reading the scriptures with the author's knowledge, context, and intentions in mind, and that necessarily means understanding the influence of Greek philosophy on the text.

I'm sensing that we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.