The tree is better than either; it's the "thing" the book is describing in its limited way, and what the council is trying to clarify and distinguish among other views.
In terms of scripture, we should remember the purpose of the scripture and the council and not lose sight of this purpose: to be of help in knowing God, not the book or council's view, by direct personal experience, more intimately. However much they help us in this is to their good.
I think there are good and valuable teachers in both camps, but they and all the books and words in the world can only take us so far, then we have take the last steps without them, and approach God without words, concepts, preconceptions, judgements, expectations or conditions. This is an individual choice, your mileage may vary. But, a map becomes less useful when confused for the destination, yes?
In Christ, we believe the Word became flesh. We sometimes try too hard to reduce the flesh into words, so we can grasp it. I think as soon as we believe we have God in our mental grasp, we can be certain what we have grasped is not God.
Maybe not the totality of God, but God has spent an awful lot of time and paid a high price for us to know Him. Your statement attempts to put Him out of reach again. He wants to be known by us. His Word is a record of that, and the only way we can know Him. You want to overlay the Word with all this mumbo-jumbo, Tradition, pomp and circumstance, mystery and layers of heirarchy. You're not bringing people close to God, you're pushing them farther away.
They're just and excuse to the get the church to pay for steak and lobster. :)
We sometimes try too hard to reduce the flesh into words, so we can grasp it. I think as soon as we believe we have God in our mental grasp, we can be certain what we have grasped is not God.
With this, I agree.