Latest / Reformed Thinking / Councils and Their Authority | John Calvin

Transcript

Councils and Their Authority | John Calvin · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform Thinking. Today we are taking a deep
0:03
plunge into a really crucial theological document.
0:06
One of our listeners sent over a careful reading of John Calvin's
0:09
Institutes of the Christian Religion, specifically focusing
0:12
on book four, and we're going to be looking at his critique of
0:15
church councils and, you know, their asserted authority.
0:18
Yeah, this deep dive is it's so central to understanding the
0:22
very spirit of the Reformation. It's all about establishing the
0:25
hierarchy of authority. For centuries you had the claims
0:28
of general counsel's being treated as well as infallible
0:31
statements handed down from heaven.
0:33
They essentially place the collective voice of the Church
0:35
leadership above all human scrutiny.
0:38
And Calvin just steps right in to challenge that premise
0:41
completely. He's not saying councils are
0:42
useless. Not at all.
0:43
He's asking a much sharper question.
0:46
Under what conditions are they legitimate?
0:49
And our source material helps us unpack his systematic approach.
0:52
First, he defines the necessary condition for Christ's presence
0:56
in any assembly. Then, second, he confronts the
0:59
historical reality of leadership failure.
1:01
And finally, he outlines the proper, balanced way we ought to
1:05
accept or, you know, reject historical decrees.
1:08
Our mission today is to move past the simple assertion that
1:11
Scripture is the only authority and really understand the
1:14
nuanced arguments Calvin constructed.
1:16
He wants to demonstrate that council authority is entirely
1:19
conditional. It's about separating what is
1:21
truly venerable and tradition from what is merely human and
1:25
frankly, fallible. OK, let's unpack this critical
1:27
first step, then determining the core condition of authority.
1:30
Calvin starts right where his opponent he addresses their
1:33
strongest claim, which is that the authority granted to the
1:36
visible church automatically transfers absolutely and without
1:39
qualification to his general counsel's.
1:41
So the idea is that if the church has authority and a
1:44
council represents the church, then the council has that
1:47
authority. Simple transfer.
1:48
Pretty much they saw the Roman Pontiff and his associates as
1:52
the automatic inheritors of this divine warrant that made their
1:56
decisions functionally equivalent to divine law.
2:00
And before he dismantles that, he does something really smart,
2:02
kind of a key diplomatic step. He establishes 2 preparatory
2:06
remarks. He says first that he doesn't
2:09
intend to disrespect the ancient councils.
2:11
In fact, he claims he venerates them and desires that they be
2:14
honored by all. Yes, and that is such crucial
2:17
positioning. He's showing he's not an
2:19
iconoclast. Just, you know, tearing down
2:21
everything old for the sake of. It he's not trying to start from
2:23
scratch. Not at all, but he immediately
2:25
pivots back to the principal. The dignity of Christ must not
2:29
be diminished. Christ alone has the right to
2:31
preside over all assemblies, whether they were small synods
2:34
or these massive international councils.
2:37
And Christ only presides when the assembly is governed
2:41
completely by His Word and Spirit.
2:43
He's basically setting up the rule of law before the court
2:45
even convenes. And what about that second
2:47
remark? It's sort of clarifies his
2:49
motivation, doesn't it? It does.
2:51
He states clearly that his critique doesn't come from a
2:54
place of fear that the ancient council somehow opposes
2:57
teaching. He actually make the opposite
3:00
argument. He says the word of the Lord
3:02
fully equips believers, and he believes that the ancient
3:05
councils themselves, if they were here, would confirm the
3:07
doctrines of the Reformation and reject the errors of his
3:10
contemporary Roman church leaders.
3:13
That's a bold claim. He's saying the original
3:15
councils are on his side. It's very bold.
3:18
So his critique is aimed purely at the doctrine of unconditional
3:21
automatic authority. He views the attempt to place
3:25
council decrees above Scripture not as honoring the church, but
3:29
as displacing Christ. So that brings us to the
3:31
theological anchor. If we wanted to find the
3:34
authority of councils, where does the clearest scriptural
3:37
promise of Christ's presence even lie?
3:39
And Calvin argues it rests entirely on Christ's statement
3:42
from the book of Matthew, where two or three are gathered
3:45
together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.
3:48
OK, not some big pronouncement about official assemblies, but
3:52
something much smaller, much more intimate.
3:54
Exactly. And what's truly revolutionary
3:56
about Calvin using this specific verse is how it completely
3:59
undercuts the Roman claim about scale.
4:03
This promise applies to two or three people meeting in a house
4:06
just as much as it applies to a universal council with hundreds
4:09
of bishops. The size of the assembly is, you
4:13
know it's irrelevant to the promise of Christ's presence.
4:16
Which means the grandeur of the the political maneuvering, the
4:19
solemn convocation, the sheer number of titled officials, all
4:23
of that outward show has no bearing on its spiritual
4:26
legitimacy. It instantly democratizes access
4:29
to Christ's presence, centering the discussion on the condition,
4:33
not the institutional structure. And that's the vital hinge being
4:36
gathered in His name. For Kelvin, this is not an
4:40
assumed condition just because they open the proceedings of the
4:42
prayer. He denies that a council is
4:44
gathered in Christ's name if they set aside God's explicit
4:47
commandment against adding to or taking away from His revealed
4:50
word. OK, so this is where he pulls in
4:52
the powerful Old Testament prohibitions referencing
4:55
Deuteronomy 4.2 and even later Wisdom literature.
4:59
The rule is clear, you cannot augment or diminish God's law.
5:04
So if a council ordained something based on their own
5:06
collective decision, or if they, I don't know, concoct some
5:10
novelty that stands outside the sole rule of perfect wisdom,
5:14
they are automatically violating the condition of being gathered
5:17
in Christ's name. That's it.
5:19
This rule is the special mark distinguishing a true and lawful
5:23
counsel from all the rest. To under score this, Calvin
5:26
turns to the Levitical priesthood in Malachi chapter 2.
5:29
He reminds us of the covenant God made with them.
5:32
It says the lips of a priest should guard knowledge and
5:35
people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the
5:38
messenger of the Lord of hosts. So their authority wasn't
5:42
inherent just because they wore the robes, it was conditional on
5:44
them speaking from God's own lips.
5:46
They were messengers. If they taught their own wisdom
5:49
or some new innovation, they were immediately disqualified,
5:52
becoming unworthy of the authority they claimed.
5:54
And that's the analogy he's building.
5:56
If the Old Covenant priests established by divine law had
5:59
such strict conditions to teach only what they heard from God,
6:04
how much greater is the need for the New Testament church leaders
6:06
to adhere strictly to the written word?
6:09
If a council cannot meet the standard of binding faith to
6:11
God's Word alone, their claim to authority just It fails.
6:17
The difficulty for his opponents as Calvin Sod was trying to
6:20
resolve how they could justify binding the faithful to human
6:24
decrees apart from scriptural warrant.
6:26
The implication of that is massive.
6:28
I mean, if you accept this conditionality, you instantly
6:30
open every council decision, past and future, to individual
6:34
and collective scrutiny based on scripture.
6:37
This must have caused enormous friction for those who saw
6:40
tradition as an equal, or maybe even superior stream of
6:43
revelation. Oh, it absolutely did.
6:44
Because it forces the faithful to perform a test, the burden of
6:48
proof shifts entirely onto the council to demonstrate that
6:51
their decrees are nothing more than a genuine exposition of
6:54
Scripture. And if they fail that test, the
6:56
promise of Matthew 18.20 doesn't apply, no matter how many
6:59
bishops showed up. So if that's the standard,
7:01
that's the ideal, what happens when we compare that high ideal
7:04
to the historical reality? That's the logical next step
7:07
Calvin explores, and it moves us into a rather cynical, that may
7:12
be necessary assessment of church leadership over time.
7:15
This is where the argument shifts dramatically, and it
7:18
forces us to confront the, well, often depressing reality of
7:22
institutional history. Kalzin tackles the opponent's
7:25
assumption that truth resides in the visible church only if there
7:28
is agreement among the pastors, and thus the visible church
7:31
subsists only in general counsels.
7:34
This is the assumption of a guaranteed consensus based on
7:36
Apostolic succession or some similar concept.
7:39
Right, and he argues that history, specifically Scriptures
7:42
own historical record, proves this assumption has frequently
7:45
been untrue. He uses the Old Testament
7:47
prophets as his star witnesses. And these prophets, they didn't
7:51
just criticize the common people.
7:52
Their sharpest barbs were aimed squarely at the spiritual
7:55
authorities of their day. Let's start with Isaiah.
7:57
Even though God had not forsaken Jerusalem in Isaiah's time, the
8:01
spiritual leaders were. Well, they were utterly corrupt.
8:04
Isaiah describes the Watchmen, the spiritual guides, as all
8:08
blind and know nothing. They were all dumb dogs.
8:11
They cannot bark lying down. They sleep and love sleep.
8:15
It's a shocking image. It is, and he goes on.
8:18
They are also shepherds who know and understand nothing.
8:21
They all look to their own way. What's remarkable there is the
8:24
contrast. God's presence is still in
8:26
Jerusalem, but the people appointed to teach are literally
8:29
described as blind, mute and lazy dogs.
8:33
Calvin uses this to show that the institution can retain its
8:36
theological structure while the personnel running it are
8:38
completely defunct. The spiritual gift is
8:41
conditional, not inherent to the title.
8:43
And the testimony continues with Jeremiah.
8:45
He was active when the Babylonian exiled was
8:47
approaching, and he spoke of priests and prophets dealing
8:50
falsely. He says from prophet to priest,
8:52
everyone deals falsely. Everyone.
8:55
That's a sweeping statement. It is.
8:57
He also directly confronted the source of their authority.
9:00
He says the prophets are prophesying lies in my name,
9:04
since I did not send them nor did I command them.
9:07
And this is a damning account because Jeremiah isn't
9:09
criticizing secular rulers. He is criticizing the very
9:13
people who claim to speak for God.
9:15
If we accept the idea of guaranteed consensus, then
9:18
Jeremiah himself would have been the heretic, speaking against
9:21
the majority of God's appointed messengers.
9:24
But Calvin demonstrates that God's truth frequently resided
9:28
in the minority of 1. Then there's Ezekiel, who is
9:30
even sharper in his condemnation.
9:32
He described A literal conspiracy of her prophets.
9:35
In the midst of her is like a roaring lion tearing the prey.
9:39
And of the priests, he says her priests have done violence to my
9:42
law and have profaned my holy things.
9:44
They have made no distinction between the holy and the common.
9:46
What Ezekiel documents there is a catastrophic institutional
9:50
failure. The leadership conspired to
9:52
ignore the law, profaning holy things and blurring the
9:55
distinction between the sacred and the common.
9:57
This wasn't just some doctrinal error, it was moral and
10:00
functional corruption at the highest level of the visible
10:03
church. I think a listener might ask,
10:05
and it's a fair question. Sure, That was the Old Covenant,
10:08
but didn't Christ establish a better, pure church?
10:11
Wasn't the Christian era supposed to be immune from such
10:14
wholesale corruption among its leaders?
10:15
Well, Calvin wishes that were the case.
10:17
But he argues the Holy Spirit explicitly declared it would not
10:20
be. The New Testament writers
10:23
frequently predict a widespread defection among Christian
10:25
leaders, reinforcing the perpetual necessity of
10:28
discernment. He starts with Peter's warning.
10:31
Peter says as there were false prophets among the ancient folk,
10:35
so also among you there will be false teachers secretly bringing
10:38
in destructive heresies. Right.
10:40
And that passage is so important because Peter clarifies that the
10:44
danger doesn't spring from outside agitators.
10:47
It's brings from those who boast the title of teachers and
10:49
pastors, the very people who claim spiritual authority.
10:52
The dangerous from within. Precisely.
10:55
And Paul confirms this grim forecast.
10:57
Paul states that Antichrist will sit in no other place than the
11:01
temple of God. Which is a statement that
11:03
fundamentally shifts the frame of reference.
11:05
The terrible calamity and spiritual confusion won't
11:08
originate from secular dictatorships or foreign armies.
11:11
But for those who occupy the chairs of spiritual authority
11:14
within the church structure. That location, the temple of
11:17
God, is just critical. It means that the worst forms of
11:21
deception and error will emerge under the guise of piety and
11:24
legitimate office. It necessitates a posture of
11:27
constant watchfulness because the wolf is wearing the
11:30
shepherd's clothes. And the warning Paul gives to
11:33
the Ephesian bishops is maybe the most personal and direct
11:36
example of this internal corruption.
11:39
Paul warns them, saying fierce wolves will come in among you,
11:42
not sparing the flock, and from among your own selves will arise
11:46
men speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after
11:50
them. From among your own selves,
11:51
That's chilling. It is if the very men Paul
11:55
ordained could become wolves within a single generation, what
11:58
guarantee of purity could there be after 1000 or 1500 years of
12:02
unchecked succession? The natural corruption over such
12:05
a long succession of years would logically be immense.
12:08
So the conclusion Calvin draws from all this scriptural
12:11
evidence is inescapable. The truth is not always nurtured
12:15
in the bosom of the pastors, and the wholeness of the church does
12:18
not depend upon the condition of the pastors.
12:20
They also be the keepers of the peace appointed for the church's
12:23
preservation. But their failure to render what
12:26
they owe does not invalidate God's faithfulness to His
12:29
people. The church persists even if the
12:31
leaders defect. Now, this must have raised
12:34
immediate concerns among Calvin's contemporaries and
12:36
likely among some of our listeners today.
12:38
Doesn't this position lead to chaos?
12:40
If you tell people they can't trust the visible leaders, how
12:43
do you maintain any institutional stability and
12:46
unity? That is precisely the dilemma
12:48
Calvin confronts. He warns against the blind
12:51
acceptance of those called pastors, especially when the
12:54
current church hierarchy, led by the Pope, shakes off obedience
12:58
to God's Word. They claim the Spirit of God
13:00
continually dwells in them, making them immune to error.
13:04
But Calvin insists that God can and does punish the world by
13:07
striking its spiritual leaders with blindness and dullness,
13:10
just as he did in the days of the prophets.
13:12
He says God warns US Apparel not to reassure us of guaranteed
13:15
safety in official titles, but to render us more cautious.
13:19
So stability cannot come from the office itself, but only from
13:22
adherence to the standard that governs the office.
13:25
If the person holding the title is blind, following them is
13:28
spiritual suicide. Correct.
13:30
And that leads us to the next logical step in his argument.
13:33
If individual leaders can fail, what happens when you gather
13:36
hundreds of those potentially blind men into a formal
13:39
assembly? Does the collective nature of
13:41
the Council miraculously restore their sight?
13:45
That's a good question. He moves from the individual to
13:47
the group. Right, he moves to the problem
13:49
of aggregation. He asks what Spirit presides
13:52
over a general council of priests when the whole order was
13:55
prophesied to be astounded and muted and the law destined to
13:58
perish from the priest. It's a powerful rhetorical move.
14:01
If the raw ingredients, the individual pastors, are spoiled,
14:05
how can the resulting dish, the council, be pure?
14:08
He immediately pulls out a historical example that is
14:10
incredibly difficult to argue against.
14:13
The council convened by Ahab in First Kings 22.
14:16
Oh, this is a classic biblical scene of institutional flattery
14:20
versus solitary truth. You have 400 prophets gathered.
14:23
That's a massive counsel for that era, but their sole purpose
14:27
was to tell the wicked King Ahab what he wanted to hear.
14:30
A prophecy of success against Vermont.
14:32
Gilead. And the judgement against them
14:34
is terrifying. Scripture records that the Lord
14:36
allowed a lying spirit, Satan, to be in the mouths of all 400
14:40
prophets. So they had numerical consensus,
14:42
they had the official titles, but they were acting under a
14:45
spiritual delusion. A complete delusion.
14:47
Yeah, and they condemned the lone voice of truth, Makaya, who
14:50
was judged as a heretic, beaten and cast into prison.
14:54
This demonstrates definitively that consensus among supposed
14:57
leaders can be the very means by which truth is rejected and
15:01
persecuted. In fact, in this case, the
15:03
council functioned as an organized instrument of the lie.
15:06
The number of participants did not sanctify the decree, it
15:10
merely magnified the error. But one could argue that the
15:12
Ahab council, you know, it wasn't the true church.
15:16
So Calvin provides an example that is far more challenging.
15:19
The council convened by the high priests and Pharisees against
15:22
Christ in Jerusalem recorded in John Chapter 11.
15:25
Yes, outwardly, this assembly possessed every single mark of
15:29
legitimacy. According to the standards of
15:31
the day. A church existed in Jerusalem,
15:33
sanctioned by God. Christ himself participated in
15:36
its temple ceremonies. A solemn convocation of the
15:39
highest spiritual authorities took place, and legitimate High
15:42
priest presided. If anyone had a claim to
15:44
guaranteed spiritual authority based on visible succession, it
15:47
was this group. And yet, what was the outcome of
15:50
this perfect legitimate counsel? Christ, the very Son of God and
15:53
the embodiment of all truth, was condemned.
15:56
His teaching was castaway and plans were solidified for his
15:59
execution. That action, Calvin argues,
16:02
proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the church was not
16:05
contained within that council. It shatters the notion that
16:08
institutional titles, numerical majority, or outward spiritual
16:12
standing can ever guarantee orthodoxy.
16:14
If the highest counsel of the Old Covenant could condemn the
16:17
Messiah himself, then the New Covenant Church must never
16:20
assume its own assemblies are infallible.
16:23
The implication for you, the listener, is just it's huge.
16:26
If you treat the assembly of pastors as the infallible
16:29
container of the church, you risk putting yourself in the
16:32
same position as Caiaphas and the Pharisees.
16:35
You risk rejecting the truth when it stands outside the
16:38
institutional consensus. That is the ultimate warning.
16:41
Calvin insists that we must not grant that the church consists
16:44
in the assembly of pastors whom the Lord has declared will
16:46
sometimes be evil. He directly counters the
16:49
confident assumption of his opponents by reminding them that
16:52
the Holy Spirit predicts apostasy.
16:54
Paul warns that this apostasy cannot come unless the pastors
16:57
are the first to forsake God. So it requires the pastors
17:00
themselves to lead the way into spiritual error.
17:03
That's it. Therefore, we must not be
17:04
willfully blind to the danger of destruction coming from within.
17:07
The leadership structure, the titles, the history, the
17:10
vestments, none of it is a guarantee.
17:13
When God warns of peril, as he does repeatedly through the
17:16
prophets and apostles, he does so to make us more wary, more
17:21
discerning, not more complacent. OK, if that's the case, and we
17:25
are prevented from trusting counsels unconditionally, how
17:28
does Calvin avoid, for lack of a better word, spiritual anarchy?
17:32
He's clearly not calling for the total abolition of all councils.
17:36
He must offer a path forward, a means by which we can judge
17:39
these decrees. He does, and This is why his
17:41
position is described as one of moderation.
17:44
He grants a proper but strictly conditional authority to the
17:47
historical assemblies. This leads us directly to the
17:50
standard of judgement. The critique of fallibility is
17:53
just the setup. The critical question for the
17:55
learner is how do you treat history without idolizing it?
17:58
Or, you know, discarding it entirely.
18:00
Calvin acknowledges that councils have a role.
18:02
He is not arguing that all councils are to be condemned or
18:05
their acts rescinded. He seeks to integrate them into
18:07
a scriptural hierarchy. So he provides A systematic 3
18:11
step process for evaluating any decree brought forward.
18:14
What is the first step of diligent pondering?
18:17
Well, the first two points deal with context and personnel.
18:20
We have to ask when was the Council held, on what issue was
18:24
it focused and with what intention did they meet?
18:27
Then we have to ask what sort of men were present.
18:30
This forces historical scrutiny. You can't just read the decree,
18:34
you have to investigate the circumstances and the characters
18:37
involved. So you're treating the Council
18:39
as a human historical event, not some divine pronouncement.
18:42
You have to ask about political pressures, personal ambitions
18:45
and the era's raining philosophical concerns.
18:47
Precisely. But the third step is the most
18:50
critical, the non negotiable standard.
18:53
They must examine the decree by the standard of Scripture.
18:56
The Council's decision that is only a provisional judgement, it
18:59
curious wait because people met, they prayed, they deliberated.
19:02
It should be taken seriously, but it must not block the
19:05
essential and final examination by the Word of God.
19:08
To bolster this idea of conditional acceptance, Calvin
19:11
pulls out one of the strongest possible voices from Christian
19:14
history, Augustine. He cites Augustine's counsel
19:17
against the Aryan heretic Maximus.
19:20
Augustine told him I not to throw up against you, the
19:23
Council of Nicaea, nor you against me, the Council of
19:26
Romanum, as prejudging the matter.
19:28
That is a fascinating quote. Why does Augustine dismiss both
19:31
councils as a final authority in that specific argument?
19:35
He was the supporter of NICAEA. He was, but Nicaea was the great
19:38
orthodox council that condemned Arianism, which Augustine would
19:41
have of course accepted. But Araminum, which happened
19:44
just a few decades later in the 4th century, was a deeply
19:47
compromised council. The Aryan faction, through
19:50
political coercion and just general confusion, managed to
19:53
have a nearly Aryan statement approved by many Western
19:56
bishops. It was later annulled, but it
19:58
was a perfect example of a widely attended council going
20:01
spectacularly wrong. So Augustine is saying neither
20:04
of us can use our favorite or least favorite council as the
20:07
final proof. Right.
20:09
Instead, Augustine insists, let matter contend with matter,
20:13
cause with cause, reason with reason by scriptural
20:16
authorities, not those peculiar to either one, but those common
20:20
to both. That's the moderation required.
20:22
Scripture stands in the higher place.
20:24
It does. Councils provide arguments and
20:26
definitions, but those definitions must be validated by
20:29
the sole common standard. And This is why Calvin accepts
20:34
and reverences the early councils.
20:36
Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus deserves Chalcedon.
20:39
He accepts them not because the men who gathered were
20:42
infallible, but because they contain nothing but the pure and
20:45
genuine exposition of Scripture, applied with spiritual prudence
20:49
to crush the religious errors of the time.
20:51
That distinction is key. He accepts the Council's because
20:54
they faithfully rendered Scripture, not because of the
20:56
inherent authority of the men who met.
20:58
However, he notes that this golden age didn't last.
21:01
Affairs tend to degenerate, and later councils degenerated
21:05
severely from the purity of that earlier age.
21:08
The problem became widespread when votes started to be counted
21:11
rather than weighed, meaning that orthodox arguments could be
21:14
easily defeated by a larger, less godly majority.
21:17
And this issue becomes acute when you're dealing with
21:19
historical conflicts where two separate councils reach
21:22
diametrically opposed conclusions.
21:25
How do you resolve that contradiction without a higher
21:28
authority? You can't.
21:30
Calvin says the only sure principle is to determine from
21:33
Scripture which decree is orthodox.
21:36
He offers the perfect illustration, the volatile issue
21:40
of images or iconoclasm. This was an issue that flared up
21:44
for centuries, wasn't it? Absolutely.
21:46
About 900 years before Calvin's time, there was the Council of
21:49
Constantinople, convened under Emperor Leo the Third.
21:53
They decided that images and statues set up in churches
21:55
should be pulled down and smashed, believing they violated
21:58
the second commandment. They were known as the
22:00
iconoclasts, the image Breakers. And what happened after that?
22:03
Well, a little later, in a late 8th century, another council,
22:06
the Second Council of Nicaea, was assembled under the
22:08
political influence of Emperor Cyrene.
22:10
This council decreed the complete restoration of images,
22:13
specifically including their veneration or, you know,
22:16
worship. So 2 massive ecumenical
22:18
councils, both claiming divine guidance, took completely
22:22
opposite size on an issue directly related to the 10
22:25
commandments. Exactly.
22:26
And Calvin asks, which of these two shall we acknowledge as
22:30
legitimate? The second Nicaea prevailed in
22:32
the West and among the common people.
22:35
But Calvin points out that even earlier church fathers like
22:37
Augustine were wary of the ever present danger of idolatry
22:41
associated with images. Epiphanius was even harsher,
22:45
calling the sight of images in Christian churches unlawful and
22:48
abominable. Calvin notes that if the acts
22:50
are believed, the Nicene Council approved not only the existence
22:53
of images but also their worship.
22:55
A decree, Calvin states, clearly emanated from spiritual
22:58
delusion. The only way to resolve the
23:00
conflict is to go back to the explicit text of the second
23:02
commandment itself. And the second example relates
23:05
to Christology and heresy. We accept Chalcedon because it
23:08
defined the two natures of Christ properly, but we reject
23:11
Ephesus the second. What was the specific issue
23:13
there? Ephesus the Second, held in 449
23:16
AD, was known as the Robber Synod because of the violent
23:19
political coercion that was used.
23:22
This council confirmed the Eudican and heresy, which
23:25
essentially taught that Christ had only one nature, with the
23:28
human nature sort of swallowed up by the divine.
23:31
It was a complete disaster, overturned only two years later
23:34
by the Council of Teledon. So even within a two year
23:37
window, the highest institutional authority flipped
23:39
180°. Yes, the holy men of the church
23:43
were forced to judge this matter solely by Scripture, ignoring
23:46
the course of decrees of Ephesus the 2nd and Calvin's instruction
23:49
is that we follow the godly leaders of Chalcedon only in as
23:52
much as God's Word shown before them.
23:54
Their virtue is not their office, but their adherence to
23:57
truth. Let's consider the risks of this
23:59
human element. Even in the Council's Calvin
24:02
accepts. I'm fascinated by his reference
24:04
to Nicaea itself, the great celebrated council of 325 AD
24:08
that produced the Creed. If Nicaea is the model of
24:11
orthodoxy, what did Calvin say was flawed about the gathering?
24:14
Well, he points out that even in this purist of councils, human
24:18
failings were evident when they gathered to fight Arias.
24:21
The bishops, forgetting all seriousness and modesty, fell
24:24
into internal dissensions. They begin to revile one
24:27
another, letting loose foul recriminations and accusatory
24:31
pamphlets against fellow Orthodox bishops over unrelated
24:34
personal grudges. It sounds like a nasty political
24:37
convention rather than a spiritual assembly.
24:39
Precisely. Calvin highlights this moment
24:42
because it demonstrates that even an assembly convened to
24:45
fight a serious heresy could be overrun by base human ambition
24:49
and pettiness. The contentions would not have
24:51
ended until they had physically wounded one another if Emperor
24:54
Constantine had not intervened. And what was Constantine's
24:57
intervention? What did he do?
24:58
Constantine refused to even read the bishops pamphlets.
25:01
He gathered the documents, chastised their intemperance,
25:04
and publicly burned the accusations, stating that their
25:06
personal quarrels should not derail the pursuit of doctrine.
25:10
Calvin uses the scene to ask if the celebrated Council of Nicaea
25:13
could display such human feelings.
25:15
How many more respects did later councils fail in, especially
25:19
without a godly emperor to intervene?
25:21
Calvin also notes that Pope Leo, a venerated historical figure,
25:25
did not hesitate to charge the Council of Chalcedon, which Leo
25:28
admitted was orthodox in its doctrine, with ambition and
25:32
unadvised rashness. Right, Leo openly declared that
25:35
even a legitimate orthodox council could air in its
25:38
procedures or decisions outside the core doctrine.
25:41
The aim of showing these errors is strategic then.
25:43
It is it is not to frighten men away from all councils, but to
25:46
guard against putting too much confidence in men.
25:49
By demonstrating that the Holy Spirit so governed even godly
25:52
councils as to allow something human to happen to them, we are
25:56
prevented from treating them as infallible oracles.
25:59
This moderated, cautious view is the necessary guardrail that
26:03
keeps tradition subordinate to Scripture.
26:05
So the standard is clear. Scripture is the judge, but the
26:09
opponents must have had a fall back position when confronted
26:12
with these facts. They couldn't just drop the
26:14
claim of unconditional authority.
26:16
How did they try to enforce obedience to these fallible
26:19
decrees? Well, they moved from arguing
26:21
based on perfection to arguing based on pastoral necessity.
26:25
They invoke the duty of obedience.
26:27
And this is where we confront the practical defense of the
26:30
Roman system. When cornered by historical
26:33
facts and scriptural counter examples, the Romanists resort
26:36
to the plea that men must simply obey their rulers regardless of
26:39
their moral or mental state, citing verses like Hebrews
26:42
13.16. Obey your leaders and submit to
26:45
them. And Calvin meets this directly.
26:47
He asked a fundamental question. What if I deny that wicked,
26:51
stupid, or I'll counseled men are truly rulers in a spiritual
26:54
sense? He argues that mere possession
26:56
of the title does not confer spiritual authority if the
26:59
condition of fidelity is broken. He illustrates this with the
27:02
example of Joshua. Joshua was appointed to office,
27:05
but that appointment came with an express condition from the
27:08
Lord. This book of the law shall not
27:10
depart out of your mouth. You shall not turn from it to
27:13
the right hand or to the left. Then you will direct your path
27:16
and understand it. The authority granted to Joshua
27:20
was entirely conditional upon his absolute adherence to the
27:23
law. The moment he turned aside from
27:25
the law, he would cease to be a spiritual ruler acting on God's
27:29
behalf. Calvin applies this principle
27:31
universally. Those who turn aside from the
27:34
law are not spiritual rulers, no matter how grand their office.
27:37
This provides you, the listener, with the necessary theological
27:41
tool to perform the discernment required in the previous
27:43
section. We are frequently warned in
27:45
Scripture not to heed the talk of false prophets.
27:47
Right, we have Jeremiah warning. Do not listen to the words of
27:50
the prophets who prophesied to you, for the teach you vanity,
27:54
and not from the mouth of the Lord.
27:56
This is a direct command not to listen to establish religious
28:00
authority if they're teaching vanity.
28:02
And Christ warns us to beware of false prophets who come to you
28:07
in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
28:10
The onus is on the individual believer under Christ to test
28:13
the message, John says. Clearly test the spirits to see
28:17
whether they are of God. That mandate is universal.
28:21
And Calvin highlights the sheer absurdity of granting
28:23
unconditional authority by reminding us that not even
28:26
angels are exempt from this judgement.
28:28
Paul says in Galatians that if an Angel from heaven breaches a
28:30
different gospel, he has to be anathema.
28:32
If an Angel must be tested, surely A fallible human counsel
28:35
must be tested even more stringently.
28:37
The final nail in the coffin for blind obedience comes from
28:40
Christ himself. If a blind man lead a blind man,
28:44
both will fall into the ditch. Therefore, no titles council,
28:48
pastor, Bishop can prevent us from testing them by the
28:50
standard of God's Word. The Lord took particular care to
28:54
Alarma so that we should not allow ourselves to be LED into
28:56
others error masked under any name whatsoever.
28:59
Now we must concede that convening a Synod of true godly
29:02
bishops is indeed the best and surest remedy for doctrinal
29:06
discussion and heresy. When done properly, like at
29:09
Nicaea against Arianism, or Constantinople against the
29:12
madness of Eunomius, it provides a common agreed upon definition
29:15
derived from Scripture to maintain unity and silence
29:18
wicked men. This ordinary method is
29:21
God-given for the Church's well-being.
29:24
But the Romanists exploited this legitimacy.
29:26
They knew that people respected the term council ordinance, so
29:28
they began to misuse the term interpretation of scripture to
29:31
assert illegitimate control. That's right, they called every
29:35
council ordinance an interpretation to bind the
29:37
faithful, even if Scripture was completely silent on the matter,
29:41
or even worse, if Scripture cried out directly against it.
29:45
They created new doctrines, had counsel sanctioned them, and
29:48
then retroactively called that sanctioning and interpretation
29:51
of the Bible. Can you give us a few examples
29:53
of this novelty that Calvin highlights things not found in
29:57
Scripture that were nonetheless mandated as interpretation?
30:00
Absolutely. Think about doctrines like
30:02
purgatory, the detailed intercession of Saints, and
30:05
obligatory auricular confession confessing sins privately to a
30:09
priest. Calvin states these things are
30:11
simply not found in Scripture. Yet because these practices were
30:15
sanctioned by church consensus and usage over time, they were
30:18
required to be taken as binding interpretations of God's will,
30:21
regardless of the lack of scriptural basis.
30:24
And then there are the outright contradictions.
30:25
The sheer defiance of Christ's explicit institution is
30:28
shocking. I'm thinking of the prohibition
30:31
of the cup to the lady during the Supper.
30:33
Yes, Christ bids all drink of the cup in the Supper.
30:36
Matthew records Christ saying drink of it, all of you.
30:41
Yet the Council of Constants in the 15th century forbade the cup
30:45
to be given to the laity, willing that the priest alone
30:48
drink it. That's not interpretation,
30:50
that's just annulment. How could they demand this
30:52
action, which is diametrically opposed to Christ's institution,
30:56
be considered interpretation? They couldn't, which is Calvin's
30:59
point. They were using the weight of
31:01
the council to override the clear command of Christ, yet
31:04
still demanding that the faithful submit under the banner
31:07
of church authority. It's an act of institutional
31:09
rebellion masked by spiritual jargon.
31:12
Another stark example is the prohibition of marriage for
31:14
priests. Paul calls forbidding marriage
31:17
the hypocrisy of demons. In First Timothy, the Spirit
31:20
declares marriage holy and honorable in all.
31:23
Yet the subsequent prohibition of marriage for priests was
31:25
demanded as true interpretation. When, as Calvin notes, nothing
31:29
more alien to Scripture can be devised.
31:32
To call such shamelessness interpretation is to misuse and
31:35
even blasphemy the very idea of Church authority.
31:38
And finally, the argument reaches its climax with the
31:40
assertion Calvin calls a blasphemy unfit to be mentioned,
31:44
the claim that the church has the power to approve Scripture.
31:48
This is the ultimate elevation of man over God.
31:51
It suggests that the validity of God's oracles, the very
31:54
foundation of Christian faith, depends upon human whim or the
31:58
vote of a council. To subject the infallible,
32:00
eternal Word of God to men's temporal judgment is, for
32:03
Calvin, beyond the pale. And the logical flaw in this
32:06
assertion is crippling. If Scriptures authority is
32:09
grounded in Council approval, which council promulgated the
32:12
biblical Canon? The opponents cannot cite 1
32:14
comprehensive council that definitively set the Canon for
32:17
all time, and certainly not one that predates the New Testament
32:20
itself. And we can revisit Nicaea to
32:22
show the practicality of the issue.
32:25
Why did Arius allow himself to be overcome by testimonies taken
32:28
from the Gospel of John at Nicaea if the validity of that
32:31
gospel had not yet been approved by a general counsel?
32:35
The very act of debating doctrine requires a
32:37
pre-existing, non negotiable standard of truth.
32:41
The authority of God's Word stands alone and precedent,
32:44
needing no ratification from any human assembly, no matter how
32:47
holy or numerous. That makes the chain of
32:50
authority absolutely clear. God speaks through His Word, and
32:53
the Church, through its counsels, is simply tasked with
32:55
receiving, expounding, and applying that word.
32:58
The moment it introduces novelty or overrides the text, its
33:01
authority just evaporates. Yes.
33:04
We have seen Calvin's argument establish A precise hierarchy.
33:07
Scripture reigns supreme, and councils are subservient, acting
33:10
as helpful though fallible aids to sound doctrine.
33:13
The crucial distinction lies between those assemblies that
33:15
genuinely teach from God's lips, adhering to the condition of
33:17
Matthew 18.20, and those that concoct novelty from their own
33:21
heads, disregarding the sole standard of wisdom.
33:24
So what does this all mean for you, the learner, today?
33:27
It means that discernment is not an optional hobby for advanced
33:30
students. It is a spiritual necessity
33:33
required for survival. The titles, the historical
33:36
lineage, and the outward appearance of leadership are
33:38
meaningless if they are not upheld by the sole standard of
33:41
wisdom, the word itself. It is a constant call to be a
33:45
Berean, testing all things by the Scriptures, recognizing that
33:48
God's truth is not dependent on human consensus, be it ancient
33:51
or modern. It forces us to ask, is this
33:54
teaching simply the consensus of the current board of directors,
33:57
or is it genuinely derived from the original source material?
34:00
This raises an important question for us all to consider
34:03
as we close this deep dive giving Calvin strict
34:06
conditionality when facing a doctrinal dispute today.
34:10
How can any group of Christian leaders assemble in such a way
34:13
that they genuinely fulfill the condition of being gathered in
34:15
Christ's name? How can they honor the supreme
34:18
authority of the Word and avoid the pitfalls of human ambition?
34:22
What structure, what rules of engagement must they adopt to
34:26
truly submit their judgement to the text rather than using the
34:29
text to justify their pre-existing consensus?
34:32
Think about that as you continue your studies.
34:35
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into Calvin's
34:37
perspective on Council authority.
34:39
We hope this knowledge equips you for continued learning and
34:42
greater discernment.