Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

[dadof10]

In 1Thess 2 Paul admits that the church at Corinth accepted his teaching "For what it is - the Word of God".

Yes. They accepted their oral teaching "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers."

He is equating oral teaching with the word of God, not Scripture. That said....

Peter says that some men distort the words of Paul "along with the rest of scripture" indicating that he knew Paul's letters were to be accepted as scripture.

Yes they were, as were the Gospel of Barnabas, the Acts of John and the Apocolypse of the Virgin, in certain communities at certain times. They were right about some, wrong about others because the inspiration of books and letters is not immediately apparent.

I think we all agree that the church was actively engaged in reading Paul and Peter and John and Luke during the first century -- they did not wait for someone to come along 200 years later and say "OK start reading Paul".

I agree. But, again, not all communities considered them inspired.

In fact the church councils in later centuries were merely clarifying what was already established practice from the 1st century lest that practice should be confused and clouded by customs and practices that were arising "new" over the centuries.

I don't know what you mean by "customs and practices that were arising "new" over the centuries". Church councils settled on a single canon around 400 AD due to disputes over the inspiation of certain books. The fact that they NEEDED a council to make this decision speaks to the fact that they weren't "merely clarifying" the list of already recognized books and letters.

 

[Pogo]

In my view. the well-worn passage below sheds new light regarding those who think, because they have been taught, that they are insufficient to interpret the scriptures for themselves...

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
(15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

To whom could Paul be addressing this ordinance?

Paul doesn't seem to have an understanding that each congregation is to have INSPIRED ones standing among them who will, having a special ANOINTING of INFALLIBLY, steer them down the path of truth and light.

Otherwise, why tell an inspired, infallible, anointed one to study?

And, likewise, why the warnings to beware 'wolves-in-sheeps-clothing' if, as the apostles left this world, for one better, they had established INFALLIBLE leadership in Christ's one true church?

Ample evidence exsists for us today, that no church is led by INSPIRED, ANOINTED, INFALLIBLE, ones!

Look at the church's role in the Inquisitions, the Holocaust, and even eating meat on Friday!

The NT scriptures haven't changed positions on anything, yet churches are constantly repositioning themselves to accomodate new views.

Therefore, the passage above can only be meant to be applied to EACH, individual, single, believer of the Gospel!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[Free]

So, if we look at "Step 1", if it seems to contradict what we know, . . . then we can automatically assume that the words were meant as allegory.

It could be that there only appears to be a contradiction. It could be that what we know is wrong. We can never automatically make such an assumption.

 

[dadof10]

In mt view. the well-worn passage below sheds new light regarding those who think, because they have been taught, that they are insufficient to interpret the scriptures for themselves...

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
(15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Who could Paul be addressing this ordinance to?

Pogo,
Paul is giving Timothy instructions for handling his congregation and how to be a Church leader. It's not an "ordinance". It is practical application of the Truth he recieved. "Rightly dividing" does not mean "read scripture, interpret it for yourself and if your view contradicts my view, start your own church." In fact, it's not even clear the word "word" is in reference to Scripture at all.

Paul doesn't seem to have an understanding that each congregation is to have INSPIRED ones standing among them, who have a special ANOINTING to INFALLIBLY steer them down the path of truth and light.

You misunderstand the doctrine of infallibility. It is a gift given to the faithful and is only operative under certain conditions. We don't believe there are "infallible" people at all, let alone one in each congregation. But, I think you knew that.

And, likewise, why the warnings to beware 'wolves-in-sheeps-clothing', if as the apostles left this world, for one better, they had established INFALLIBLE leadership in Christ's one true church?

Because people sin, including Church members.

Look at the churches role in the Inquisitions, the Holocaust, and even eating meat on Friday!

Rambling...

The NT scriptures haven't changed positions on anything, yet churches are constantly repositioning themselves.

The NT Scriptures CAN'T change positions, they are already written and their Authors are gone. It's people who won't submit to proper authority, who continue to interpret Scripture for themselves and who start their own churches because of those interpretations that are "repositioning themselves". The Catholic Church still teaches the same thing She did 2000 years ago.

 

[Free]

Look at the churches role in the Inquisitions

Rambling...

I wouldn't dismiss that argument so glibly. The guilt of the Church's past is probably one of the biggest reasons why people dismiss Christianity, that and the lack of Christ-likeness in most of the modern Church. This is a huge stumbling block.

 

[dadof10]

I wouldn't dismiss that argument so glibly

Free,

I won't when it's part of an argument either for or against the OP. The sentence seemed out of place in this discussion.

The guilt of the Church's past is probably one of the biggest reasons why people dismiss Christianity, that and the lack of Christ-likeness in most of the modern Church. This is a huge stumbling block.

If Pogo would have stopped his sentence where you did (at the word "inquisitions"), I would have taken it more seriously. There were actual abuses there, as opposed to the other two, which were mentioned for the reason....I'll leave it there

God Bless, Mark

 

[Free]

Fair enough. :smt023 I actually thought that may have been the case, but I didn't want to let it slide if it wasn't. :-D

 

[dadof10]

Fair enough. :smt023 I actually thought that may have been the case, but I didn't want to let it slide if it wasn't. :-D

No problem and God bless. Mark

 

[BobRyan]

In my view. the well-worn passage below sheds new light regarding those who think, because they have been taught, that they are insufficient to interpret the scriptures for themselves...

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
(15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

To whom could Paul be addressing this ordinance?

Paul doesn't seem to have an understanding that each congregation is to have INSPIRED ones standing among them who will, having a special ANOINTING of INFALLIBLY, steer them down the path of truth and light.

Otherwise, why tell an inspired, infallible, anointed one to study?

...
Therefore, the passage above can only be meant to be applied to EACH, individual, single, believer of the Gospel!

May God bless us all,

Pogo

Indeed JUST as we see in Gal 1:6-11 "IF WE or an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should come to you preaching a different gospel... let them be accursed!" It is to the individual that the message comes and the test he gives is to be applied to claimed APOSTLES and even to ANGELS!

In 2Cor 11 Paul argues that the church received his teaching well but then he worries that church members might be duped into listening to any new church leader coming along and might accept teaching of 'a different christ' who is NOT in agreement with what HAD ALREADY been established through scripture.

In Acts 17:11 it is individual NON-CHRISTIANS that are TESTING Paul "studying the scriptures DAILY TO SEE IF those things spoken by Paul WERE SO".

In all these examples it is the laity (yes even non-christians in some cases) testing the very HIGHEST leaders in the church against the established teaching of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dadof10]

In 2Cor 11 Paul argues that the church received his teaching well but then he worries that church members might be duped into listening to any new church leader coming along and might accept teaching of 'a different christ' who is NOT in agreement with what HAD ALREADY been established through scripture.

Through Scripture? The text doesn't support this conclusion. Paul lived with them. It's possible his first letter was recognized as Scriptural at the time of the second letter's writing, but he doesn't reference it as such.

Since there was a first letter and it was referenced as simply a letter, it stands to reason that it either wasn't considered Scriptural, or if it was, Paul considered his oral teaching ("preaching") at least on par with his writings.

Either way, his teaching was both oral and written, yet not looked upon as "Scripture".

 

[BobRyan]

Paul never presents his message as "opposed to scripture" and as we see in Acts 17:11 it is specifically PAUL's message that was being evaluated by Scripture alone.

Paul says "though WE" (that would mean Paul AND ALL other Apostles) or "an Angel from heaven" "should preach to you a different Gospel other than you have received let him be accursed".

Frankly that advise would be outright impossible IF the rule was really "if Paul says it -- just accept it".

How in the world could someone argue "I am testing what Paul says just like he told me to -- because HE says that if HE is in error in his teaching then he is to be accursed" if in fact the "test" is "accept anything Paul says without comparing it to scripture"?

Bob

 

[dadof10]

Paul never presents his message as "opposed to scripture"

Of course not.

and as we see in Acts 17:11 it is specifically PAUL's message that was being evaluated by Scripture alone.

The Beroeans were not "proof texting" Paul's entire message, they were searching the Scriptures to see if it was "necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" , which was a prophecy that they were "testing".

Acts 17:1-3 "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

Why "from the Scriptures"? Because it is a Jewish audience and they accepted Scripture as authoratative.

10-11 "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

"These things" were SPECIFIC things preached to a JEWISH audience that accepted Scripture as authoritative. The "things" are whether it was necessary for the Christ to suffer, die and rise again.

Paul says "though WE" (that would mean Paul AND ALL other Apostles) or "an Angel from heaven" "should preach to you a different Gospel other than you have received let him be accursed".

Frankly that advise would be outright impossible IF the rule was really "if Paul says it -- just accept it".

Gal. 1:8 is an obvious exaggeration, it would be possible, I guess, for Paul (or "we") to apostasize, but impossible for an "angel from Heaven". Paul is not minimizing his "gospel" or putting Scripture above it, otherwise he wouldn't have said in verses 11-12, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ." His PREACHING is from Christ, his PREACHING is his gospel.

How in the world could someone argue "I am testing what Paul says just like he told me to -- because HE says that if HE is in error in his teaching then he is to be accursed" if in fact the "test" is "accept anything Paul says without comparing it to scripture"?

The "test" is comparing it to Scripture? Again, where does Scripture say this?

Paul is preaching the Gospel which contains both his written and his ORAL TEACHING, which is what they are to "test" other gospels against. If it were ONLY Scripture (OT Scripture, BTW), Paul certainly would have said so.

 

[BobRyan]

and as we see in Acts 17:11 it is specifically PAUL's message that was being evaluated by Scripture alone.

The Beroeans were not "proof texting" Paul's entire message, they were searching the Scriptures to see if it was "necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead" , which was a prophecy that they were "testing".

Acts 17:1-3 "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he argued with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ."

10-11 "The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

Why "from the Scriptures"? Because it is a Jewish audience and they accepted Scripture as authoratative.

Paul always upholds the scriptures as the authority for doctrine -- not only in Acts 17:11 where they "study the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO" but also in 2Tim 3:16 the scriptures are "to be used for doctrine and correction" according to Paul "so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good deed".

Paul never argues "do not use scripture to test what is being said" - when the practice is referenced - he only affirms the practice as we see Acts 17:11 since he considers the scriptures are to be "used for doctrine and correction".

Paul is seen to embrace this very practice in Acts 17:1-3. Teaching "From the scriptures".

In Matt 24 Christ said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world".

Paul argues in Gal 1:6-11 that there is ONLY ONE Gospel and in Gal 3 that the Gospel was preached to Abraham during his life.

Paul never argues that "only Jews need to pay attention to the Word of God as we find it in scripture".

"These things" were SPECIFIC things preached to a JEWISH audience that accepted Scripture as authoritative. The "things" are whether it was necessary for the Christ to suffer, die and rise again.

What "other valid source" would a non-Christian have for checking things out?

When does Paul "ever" argue "don't check anyone out who comes after me to see if their teaching is correct"?

2 Cor 11
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
...

12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Bob said

Paul says "though WE" (that would mean Paul AND ALL other Apostles) or "an Angel from heaven" "should preach to you a different Gospel other than you have received let him be accursed".

Frankly that advise would be outright impossible IF the rule was really "if Paul says it -- just accept it".

Gal. 1:8 is an obvious exaggeration,

To make the point that "no one is exempt" it goes to such a limit.

Bob said -
How in the world could someone argue "I am testing what Paul says just like he told me to -- because HE says that if HE is in error in his teaching then he is to be accursed" if in fact the "test" is "accept anything Paul says without comparing it to scripture"?

The "test" is comparing it to Scripture? Again, where does Scripture say this?

Paul is preaching the Gospel which contains both his written and his ORAL TEACHING, which is what they are to "test" other gospels against. If it were ONLY Scripture (OT Scripture, BTW), Paul certainly would have said so.

It does not help us to urge fellow Christians to "test all church leaders by what the church at Corinth had in scripture and by what they heard Paul saying that you do not have any record of"

By contrast it is a simple matter to leave it as "test all church leaders by what the scriptures said at the time... and by all that Paul is recorded to have written at the time" -- i.e. NT and OT ... but would be impossible to ask that church leaders be tested by what one might imagine Paul to have said that did not get recorded.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is an example of the "Bible is corrupt so make up whatever you wish" solution being refuted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'sons of God' <בני (×â€)×Âל×â€Ã—™×Â> refers to a pantheon of divine beings (i.e., gods, not mere 'angels') that came down from the sky and copulated with the human women thereby producing giant offspring.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p395199

No such thing in all of scripture. In the Bible there is only one God. There is no text in all of scripture using the term "sons of God" to mean "Greek Pantheon of divine beings - gods".

Though I am sure that Homer would have loved to have such vallidation of his story telling.

Wavy
[quote:2uo2fap2]1. In Matt 22 Jesus states clearly that angels do not form family units not even with themsevles much less with other species!

These words, whether Jesus said them or not, is far removed from the milieu in which Genesis was written and is irrelevant to interpreting it in its own context and cultural setting.
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32855&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p395199
[/quote:2uo2fap2]

This get's to the point of exegesis AND of "Bible believing Christians" where the view is that Christ is God as scripture clearly states, that the Bible is trustworthy such that the writers record the truth not lies.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

I have said frequently that I am not a biblical literalist, at least as far as the OT is concerned.Whether this makes me an atheist in your eyes or not, I have no idea. However, I understand you to claim that the OT is historically and scientifically accurate.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395092

Indeed you argue frequently that the Bible is not to be trusted as factually accurate source. You call this "Bible is corrupt" position of yours "not taking the Bible literally".

L.K
Scripture alone is neither historical nor scientific evidence. If you don't like this uncomfortable fact, perhaps you shouldn't participate in the discussion.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33070&start=90#p395092

Again the argument is of the form "scripture can not be trusted for the facts it presents" because in your mind it is corrput -- merely the ignorant ramblings of shepherds. You then refer to your Bible-is-corrupt-text solution "not taking the Bible literally".

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

Paul always upholds the scriptures as the authority for doctrine

Paul always upholds the Scriptures as AN authority for doctrine. He ALSO upholds HIMSELF and the OTHER APOSTLES as authority for doctrine. Constantly, he tells the communities to hold onto the traditions that they HAD received, saying this implying that he taught them orally before writing to them...

And secondly, the Scriptures are to be INTERPRETED in a particular way. A bit of thought will make this become quite clear. The Essenes, Sadducees, Pharisees, etc., all had different interpretations of the same Scriptures. The Scriptures ALONE are never enough to be the sole authority for doctrine!

This is the difference between sola and prima Scriptura. The Bible never says the former. It gives OTHER examples of "authority for doctrine", such as in Ephesians 4:12-13.

Paul never argues "do not use scripture to test what is being said" - when the practice is referenced - he only affirms the practice as we see Acts 17:11 since he considers the scriptures are to be "used for doctrine and correction".

But never does he say they are the SOLE source of doctrine. Paul didn't pass out bibles. He taught the Gospels orally and written. He also taught the Gospel by his ACTIONS... In addition, people experienced Christ in the "breaking of the Bread", the Eucharist. Liturgy ALSO teaches the people doctrines, implicitly. For example, when we worship Jesus during Mass, that says we believe He is God, even when we don't make the explicit connection immediately.

In Matt 24 Christ said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world".

What is Jesus refering to, a book??? "Matthew" didn't write until some 30 years after Christ died and rose, so He must have been refering to the TEACHINGS given, which He refers to at the end of this very gospel...

Paul argues in Gal 1:6-11 that there is ONLY ONE Gospel and in Gal 3 that the Gospel was preached to Abraham during his life.

Yep. One Gospel. One body of traditions given. We aren't arguing that. Just that you cut off parts of the Gospel, like Marcion tried to cut off parts of Sacred Scriptures.

What "other valid source" would a non-Christian have for checking things out?

The Church established by Christ Himself. See Matthew 18:16-17

When does Paul "ever" argue "don't check anyone out who comes after me to see if their teaching is correct"?

Not argued. This is a biblical and extra-biblical command amongst Christian communities. Unfortunately, some communities did not heed that command in the 1500's, because THAT "gospel" was WAY different than what had been already given...

We are to test itenerant preachers, not what has already been given under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. You make yourself the judge of God, otherwise.

Regards

 

[BobRyan]

Paul always upholds the scriptures as the authority for doctrine

Paul always upholds the Scriptures as AN authority for doctrine. He ALSO upholds HIMSELF and the OTHER APOSTLES as authority for doctrine.

True -

But each time we see the two of them contrasted -- it is always scripture that is seen to judge Paul and the Apostles and even "WE or an Angel from HEAVEN" given as a way of emphasizing the point that NOBODY is excempt from that test.

This is the difference between sola and prima Scriptura.

If scripture is accepted as the prime rule and standard for doctrine then by definition it is the judge of all.

Francis

Paul never argues "do not use scripture to test what is being said" - when the practice is referenced - he only affirms the practice as we see Acts 17:11 since he considers the scriptures are to be "used for doctrine and correction".

But never does he say they are the SOLE source of doctrine. Paul didn't pass out bibles. He taught the Gospels orally and written.

He also taught the Gospel by his ACTIONS... In addition, people experienced Christ in the "breaking of the Bread",

In Matt 24 Christ said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in ALL the world and then shall the end come".

Paul argues in Gal 3 "For this reason the GOSPEL was preached beforehand to Abraham".

In Gal 1 Paul says that ANYONE preaching a DIFFERENT Gospel is to be accursed which means that even then - Paul was arguing for a "comparing" kind of "test".

Paul does not argue "don't compare what you hear against what has been written to you up until now because we are not finished yet".

Comparing was always being done - even while the NT text was being written in letter after letter.

There was never a "scripture is insufficient" argument from Paul or any of the NT saints.

So as we see in Acts 13 - Paul preaching the Gospel to BOTH Jews AND greeks -- is using scripture.

So as we see in Acts 17:1-4 - Paul preaching the Gospel to BOTH Jews and greeks -- is using scripture.

There is no "Believe whatever a church leader above a certain rank teaches --- but then test everyone else" in all of scripture.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 24 Christ said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world".

Francis
What is Jesus refering to, a book???

"STARTING with Moses and ALL the Prophets"

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:26-28 (in Context) Luke 24 (Whole Chapter)

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
"Matthew" didn't write until some 30 years after Christ died and rose, so He must have been refering to the TEACHINGS given, which He refers to at the end of this very gospel...

We are to test itenerant preachers, not what has already been given under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. You make yourself the judge of God, otherwise.

Regards

Paul is clear that there is no limit -- "Though WE or an Angel from heaven should come to you preaching a different Gospel -- let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-11.

There is no "just believe whatever a church leader above a certain rank tells you -- but everyone else must be tested" instruction in all of scripture. Even your "primacy of scripture" argument would have it that way as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

Paul always upholds the Scriptures as AN authority for doctrine. He ALSO upholds HIMSELF and the OTHER APOSTLES as authority for doctrine.

True -

But each time we see the two of them contrasted -- it is always scripture that is seen to judge Paul and the Apostles and even "WE or an Angel from HEAVEN" given as a way of emphasizing the point that NOBODY is excempt from that test.

I disagree, Bob.

When Paul says the "gospel" in Galatians, he is not speaking about the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which were probably not even written yet, if we say Galatians was written about 50 AD... The "Gospel" per Paul is the Good News - "Jesus has Risen"! Thus, I believe you are incorrectly using the word to refer to the written letters of Scriptures, when that is not the meaning of "Gospel".

If scripture is accepted as the prime rule and standard for doctrine then by definition it is the judge of all.

ALL of God's Word, not just Scriptures. Wouldn't you agree? Are you going to leave out part of God's Word because it may be implicitly stated, or may have been orally taught?

In Matt 24 Christ said "THIS Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in ALL the world and then shall the end come".

Again, not refering to the work of the four Evangelists, but the Good News, the teaching of the Kingdom of God is here in Jesus Christ. Jesus says "Gospel" and certainly is not refering to an unwritten letter, but rather, what He had been teaching. THIS Gospel. THIS teaching I am now giving you. Not "a teaching I will inspire someone to write to you in 40 years". Remember, Paul says to the Corinthians and Thessalonians to hold onto what they had RECEIVED - BEFORE the "Gospels" were written...

by the way, the term "Gospels" is something from the second century. I believe Irenaeus is the first to use the term refering to the work of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Comparing was always being done - even while the NT text was being written in letter after letter.

Even when it was oral teaching, even when given by Jesus Christ Himself, we are to test whether something is from God or not. The Pharisees did not believe that Jesus was from God... This is not unusual, and it is to be expected that the leaders of any church would indeed "test" whether the message is in line with what God had already given them through past revelations.

I don't see a problem with "testing" against previous revelations and teachings from God. And Scriptures certainly ARE part of God's Word. But not all of it. God's Word is Jesus Christ, and SOME of what He taught was not written down, as Scriptures themselves relate.

There was never a "scripture is insufficient" argument from Paul or any of the NT saints.

ALL Scriptures must be interpreted, Bob. Nowhere in Scriptures do we see individuals interpreting Scriptures APART from the community, the church - especially against what the leaders appointed by God were teaching.

So as we see in Acts 13 - Paul preaching the Gospel to BOTH Jews AND greeks -- is using scripture.

He is pointing out that God's revelation of the Christ was seen in a hidden manner in the OT. The plan of the cross was laid out in Scriptures. However, without pointing this out orally, the Bereans would never had noticed it. Thus, we need teachers to preach the Word of God. Handing out Bibles is nowhere found in Scriptures as a means of evangelizing or bringing people to God. It is always by oral preaching first.

There is no "Believe whatever a church leader above a certain rank teaches --- but then test everyone else" in all of scripture.

We do not blindly believe what we are taught. However, we DO realize that our minds are limited and sometimes, we require study to understand the teachings given by Christ's Church. Unfortunately, too many people set themselves up as "spirit guided" and will not humbly search the Scriptures when a teaching INITIALLY disagrees with their paradigm. Faith leads to understanding, Bob. St. Augustine said that, and it continues to apply today. We believe that Christ established a Church with an heirarchy and protected by the Spirit from error. This faith leads to understanding when some teaching is difficult for us. There are a number of such teachings, such as Purgatory or theology of the Trinity that are difficult to understand, but those who are willing will be rewarded with better understanding their faith.

Regards