We are often asked why we are so suspicious of the Councils that led to the formulation of the Triniarian doctrine and why we have doubts that they were actually led by the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit). For it is a tenet of the so-called 'orthodox' faith that the councils which convened to formulate the trinitarian formulae were led by the Spirit.
Our position has first and foremost been that which orthodoxy apparently repudiates when it demands unconditional acceptance of the verdicts regarding the Trinitarian doctrine of these Catholic councils, namely, that the doctrines and practices of the evangelical faith are sola scriptura - based on Scripture only. Whatever the inspiration or lack of inspiration of these councils may have been, they are, whatever one may say, extra scriptura: they contain statements made outside the Bible. They are interpretations which, however valid, are nonetheless Scripture plus. So whilst we grant people the right to believe the teachings of these councils if they feel they are right, we absolutely reject the notion that they are a test of true Christian faith and that those who reject them are heretics. Because of the evangelical position on the Bible, we must of necessity uniquivocally reject such a dogma.
This aside, there are very good grounds for believing that many of these councils were the work of men and devils, however brilliant, and not the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit). I give but one example by way of illustration.
Sir Edward B. Taylor in his book, Primitive Culture, mentions an incident that was reported to have taken place at the Nicene Council. He states:
"Ecclesiatical history commemorates a miracle at the close of the Nicene Council. Two bishops, Chrysanthus and Mysonius, had died during its sitting, and the remaining crowd of Fathers brought the acts, signed by themselves, to the tomb, addressed the deceased bishops as if still alive, and left the document. Next day, returning, they found the two signatures added, to this effect:
"' - We, Chrysanthus and Mysonius, consenting with all the Fathers in the holy first and oecumenical Nicene Synod, although translated from the body, have also signed the volume with our own hands.'"
Whether you believe this to be trickery or some sort of occult manifestation (spiritism) is immaterial if you believe in the Truth. What is perhaps interesting is that Taylor refers to the incident in his chapter dealing with spiritism and the practice of spiritual or "automatic writing", a practice that belongs to the demonic realm of the ouija board and the like.
Whether it was spiritism or trickery, the incident says a great deal about the uninspired and superstitious thinking of the kind of mentality of the men involved in the sessions of this council. Is it any wonder that such men subscribed to unscriptural ideas?
If the basic doctrines of Christendom were formulated by such men, and if rejection of these doctrines constitutes heresy, then I am pleased to be called a "heretic" by these papist occultist! God forbid that I should endorse any sort of occultism and demonism which so clearly attended such learned deliberations. (See my pamphlet, Cry Wolf! The Problem of Sects and Cults).
Let the honest Christian base his conclusions on what the Word of God says, and not on superstitious, semi-occultic Catholic synods!