There is truth to the idea that we read the Scriptures "with the church," but even then--groups of men can go astray, as had happened just before the Reformation. Luther was right to protest, and he was right to plead for a return to Augustinianism. The grounds for this is that no one man or group of men has authority above the Scriptures; the Scriptures are the final arbiter of all disputes.

Even going back to the great Schism between the East and West, we can debate about "how" that happened, whether it was in order, whether it was truly "ecumenical," but the actual substance of the debate is the more important thing. And the West was **right** to add the _filioque_ clauses--doctrinally speaking. The East was (respectably!) keen to preserve the unity of God -- the "numerically one" God -- the single _principium_ -- but once we start speaking about the order of operations, that by definition shifts the focus from the "oneness of substance" to the "threeness of persons." And Scriptures are clear that the Holy Spirit _does proceed_ from both the Father and the Son.

The most important matter is not "who is saying what" but "what is being said." We even see this in Paul: he rejoiced that the gospel was being preached correctly (even though with malicious motive) and he lambasted those who preached the gospel wrongly (even though with arguably good intention).

The message, not the man, is the thing.