Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[ItrustYouLord]

’The Biblical Basis of the Catholic Faith’ - John Salza

He proves the Catholic faith to be biblical - directly speaking to sola-scripture christians, and for Catholics trying to defend their faith.

It is stamped ‘Imprimatur’, so it is in-line with the Catholic Church’s Teachings and can be trusted

My family is protestant, and I too was a practicing protestant christian, until 2 years ago when I started looking into the Catholic faith by the guidance of a really wonderful family, and then one year later I became Catholic

This book has helped me understand my Catholic faith scripturally; especially when moments are tough and family around me say Catholics are ‘missing the mark’ and not following scripture or God’s word.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Izdaari,

Can you give a real life example of how sola scriptura differs from prima scriptura?

My impression, from what you have said, is that both would rely on personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

God bless+

Not all Protestants are sola scriptura. Some are prima scriptura (not scripture alone, but scripture first and foremost). Anglicans and Methodists are often in this category. I favor the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, in which Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience are all important, with Scripture being the most important. and the other factors mainly serving to shed light on it.

 

[rom422]

The sola scriptura principle is nowhere taught in the Bible. It has no scriptural basis because it does not have a divine, but a human origin. It is not a divine teaching, but a human strategy that the Reformers employed to reject the authority of the Church and to break away from Rome.

 

[Nicea325]

Not all Protestants are sola scriptura. Some are prima scriptura (not scripture alone, but scripture first and foremost). Anglicans and Methodists are often in this category. I favor the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, in which Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience are all important, with Scripture being the most important. and the other factors mainly serving to shed light on it.

Scripture first and foremost? Seems like Sola Scriptura because SS is basically: Scripture first and foremost.

 

[Safia]

Not all Protestants are sola scriptura. Some are prima scriptura (not scripture alone, but scripture first and foremost). Anglicans and Methodists are often in this category. I favor the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, in which Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience are all important, with Scripture being the most important. and the other factors mainly serving to shed light on it.

It is as man-made of a strategy and framework as sola scriptura, unfortunately – and thus no better.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Izdaari,

Are you still with us?

God bless

Hi, Izdaari,

Can you give a real life example of how sola scriptura differs from prima scriptura?

My impression, from what you have said, is that both would rely on personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

God bless+

 

[mrjinx777]

Good Day, tqualey,

      Act 15, displays Peter among Apostles that were his equal ,he displays no Primacy here, in fact the council was made up of both Apostles (when the apostles died - with exception to Judas"which betrayed Jesus" there were no other replacement of Apostles. Paul was called by Jesus as one out of season) and Elders, James also spoke up to confirm his agreement base on the scripture. 

        Gal 2.1,7,8,9 Paul went to those which he said were of Reputation at Jerusalem and communicated to them privily the gospel which he preach lest he run in vain (in chapter he met with Peter for fifteen days, and with James prior to the fifteen years) . he said that they added nothing to him, he equates his ministry equal with Peter's,  he singles out James, Cephas and John whom seem to be pillars (and that was of those of Reputation) all Equated Equal.

Then in verse 12-21 Paul openly rebukes Peter (not something practiced if one holds Primacy over you) I am quite certain None will Practice This with one whom so many seek to Claim Apostolic secession for Today.

 Jesus said in Luke that the bread and the fruit of the vine (the same that was used for the Passover) were his body and blood  (he was to be offered the very night) this was to be done in Remembrance of him (Jesus said that "he will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until he he do it again in the Kingdom" not his blood . Paul in 1cor 11. says as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we do Shew forth the Lord death till he comes. The bread and fruit of the vine are eaten in memory of his Blood and  Body that is the Real Bread and his blood he shed ratifies the new covenant (testament).

Your answer do not take into account that the Old testament is silent on gentles being circumcised with exception of strangers who were purchased by Jews (Gen 17:12) or those that sojourn with them and wanted to keep the Passover (.Exodus 12:48). Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit which did in no way conflicted with scripture it agreed in fact, James quotes directly from Scripture.

God Blessing - and he reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

Hi, Mrjinx,

Again, the trick here is context - and flipping back and forth to try and wrest out a verse to prove a point doesn’t really provide the proof you want.

Matthew 16 - Peter gets the power to bin and lose AND the keys, Matt 18 - the others can bind and lose - but no keys are given. The keys represent authority and this is what the Primacy of Peter is all about. Yes, Christ did rebuke Peter, “Get behind me Satan” and this is critical to understand that the Pope is not sinless - and Peter proved that point several times.

The context of John 6 and the ‘… flesh profits nothing…’ has to be taken in the John 6, not in other verses. Christ is talking about His Flesh BEING real food - not a ‘real symbol’. Besides , who walks out on symbols as the Jews did? Then there is the Last Supper where Matthew, Mark and Luke all quote Christ as saying the Bread He was now handing them was His Body - not a symbol of his Body. This is a context issue.

Now, in answer to your question. Go to Acts Chapter 15. Here we have Peter resolving the question presented by the Judiazers who wanted to enforce the Law of Moses on Gentile converts, especially male circumcision. Now EVERYTHING in the OT (the only existing Scripture at the time) indicated that circumcision was ordered by God for His People - there is no option here or separate groups of Jews breaking off that said that circumcision was an option or anything like this. Every Jewish male is circumcised - period. Now, we come to the First Council of Jerusalem - and there is absolutely NO precedent for what Peter says - but, there is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So to formulate doctrine and practice (as we see in Acts 15) we have the Holy Spirit guiding the Church of Christ (and, that would be the Holy Spirit) so that inerrant decisions are made.

Note, that it was the Catholic Church that provided the Canon of Scripture in about 400AD. There were no Protestants at this time. Prior to Scripture, those who were following Christ had to have something - and that ‘something’ was Sacred Traditions that was given to all the by the preaching of the Apostles - the First Bishops…

Hope this helps.

God bless

 

[Newsy]

Good Day, tqualey,

      Act 15, displays Peter among Apostles that were his equal ,he displays no Primacy here, in fact the council was made up of both Apostles (when the apostles died - with exception to Judas"which betrayed Jesus" there were no other replacement of Apostles. Paul was called by Jesus as one out of season) and Elders, James also spoke up to confirm his agreement base on the scripture.

Are you familiar with Acts Chapter 1? “Let another take his office” ring any bells? BTW, James would have been the local Bishop, therefore he would have had a prominent role in this Council. Also notice, once Peter gives his judgement, nobody continues to debate it.

Then in verse 12-21 Paul openly rebukes Peter (not something practiced if one holds Primacy over you) I am quite certain None will Practice This with one whom so many seek to Claim Apostolic secession for Today.

God Blessing - and he reasoned with them out of the scriptures

You reject primacy, yet seem to think you know etiquette regarding such? We are not talking about addressing your employer.

Paul never corrected Peter’s teaching. He never questioned his qualifications. Paul addressed what he thought was Peter’s error on eating with Gentiles on certain occasions, but not on others. BTW, who said Paul had the correct view of this situation? How many points of view do we have recorded?

Apostolic Succession started in Acts 1 when Mattathias replaced Judas. This was already a known tradition from Judaism. Why would they need to fill Judas office at that time, Pentacost hadn’t happened yet, there was a relatively small group at that time.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx777,

And a great Good Day! to you, too. It is a shame that you did not consult the references I gave you - they would have answered your question about Peter. While there is a chance this reference will see the same fate … I recommend you read it. It not only answers your question - it presents questions form other Protestant groups … and, answered them , too!

Here is the link: catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-james-the-real-leader-of-the-early-church

I was fascinated with your emphasis on ‘…fruit of the vine…’ as a reference for wine - you know, the Jews did not have grape juice when they celebrated Passover. In fact, no one really had grape juice as such prior to Welch’s invention in the 1800’s - here is an interesting Protestant link: fundamentallyreformed.com/2006/08/03/welchs-grape-juice-worldly-wisdom-and-wine/ So, I am not really sure what point you were trying to make here - but, Luke is the only one to use this expression … and he only used it once. Christ drank alcohol - He did not turn the jugs of water into grape juice at the Marriage Feast of Cana (John 2) And, there was no grape juice steward, eihter Also look at Matthew 11:19 - where the Pharisees called Christ a glutton and drunkard!

There is NO EVIDENCE that the Jews allowed any male into their religion without circumcision. No Old Testament Scripture was overlooked - so let me direct you to Genesis 34 where Simeon and Levi dispatched those with false pretenses that had just been circumcised! Let me repeat - circumcision was not the real issue in question - it was following all of the Law of Moses. The Judiazers said that the Gentile converts to the Catholic Faith had to obey the Mosaic Law and then the laws of the Catholic Faith! Peter said, “No!” … and James said, “That’s right!” Peter did speak by the Holy Spirit - and this was that Christ had fulfilled the Old Covenant and that there was now a New Covenant.

The verses you provided really do not address the issue presented.

God bless

Good Day, tqualey,

      Act 15, displays Peter among Apostles that were his equal ,he displays no Primacy here, in fact the council was made up of both Apostles (when the apostles died - with exception to Judas"which betrayed Jesus" there were no other replacement of Apostles. Paul was called by Jesus as one out of season) and Elders, James also spoke up to confirm his agreement base on the scripture. 

        Gal 2.1,7,8,9 Paul went to those which he said were of Reputation at Jerusalem and communicated to them privily the gospel which he preach lest he run in vain (in chapter he met with Peter for fifteen days, and with James prior to the fifteen years) . he said that they added nothing to him, he equates his ministry equal with Peter's,  he singles out James, Cephas and John whom seem to be pillars (and that was of those of Reputation) all Equated Equal.

Then in verse 12-21 Paul openly rebukes Peter (not something practiced if one holds Primacy over you) I am quite certain None will Practice This with one whom so many seek to Claim Apostolic secession for Today.

 Jesus said in Luke that the bread and the fruit of the vine (the same that was used for the Passover) were his body and blood  (he was to be offered the very night) this was to be done in Remembrance of him (Jesus said that "he will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until he he do it again in the Kingdom" not his blood . Paul in 1cor 11. says as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we do Shew forth the Lord death till he comes. The bread and fruit of the vine are eaten in memory of his Blood and  Body that is the Real Bread and his blood he shed ratifies the new covenant (testament).

Your answer do not take into account that the Old testament is silent on gentles being circumcised with exception of strangers who were purchased by Jews (Gen 17:12) or those that sojourn with them and wanted to keep the Passover (.Exodus 12:48). Peter spoke by the Holy Spirit which did in no way conflicted with scripture it agreed in fact, James quotes directly from Scripture.

God Blessing - and he reasoned with them out of the scriptures.

 

[mrjinx777]

Hi Newsy,

]Jesus came in fulfillment of scripture and to fulfill the scriptures,

(Matt 5: 17,18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He taught in accordance with scripture and what scripture predicted of him he did not conflict with scripture.

(Matt 13:35) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

(Matt 26:53,54)
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

(Luke 24: 25,27, 44)
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The Apostles weather by word , letter or tradition, taught in accordance with scripture not in conflict with scripture,

(Acts 17:11) The Berean’s were complemented because they received the word of Paul and Silas and checked it against scriptures to determine if they were true

Surely if they checked the scriptures, to prove what was being said to them was true by Paul and Silas, this would suggest they were speaking in accordance with scripture.

It was Paul practice ( or you can say tradition) to use the scripture to reason with them (this is Old Testament)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
(Acts18:24, Acts18:28, Romans1:2, Romans4:3, Romans9:17, Romans10:11
Romans11:2, Romans15:4,Romans16:26, 1 Corinthians15:3,1 Corinthians15:4
Galatians3:8, Galatians3:22, 2 Timothy3:16, 2 Timothy3:15.)

I can go on with this and with other apostles to prove their practice weather by word of mouth or by letter or by tradition they were in accordance with scripture not in contradiction of scripture.

Hebrew 10. I agree deals with christian Jews who were thinking to return to Judaism however the Passover and all that the earthly temple and it system, represented Jesus and his life and ministry.
The bread and fruit of the vine (the communion) was instituted by Jesus to represent his body and blood (his death) and that it might be remembered by his followers.

The Jewish system foreshadowed Jesus life, sacrifice and his priestly ministry, the Jews looked forward to Messiah coming (which largely they rejected) we look backward to Jesus having come and died through the Lord Supper. the same bread for the Passover was used for the Lord Supper.

Christ does not condemned the temple and the Lavitical system they represented His Ministry and the Heavenly Temple in which he is Priest and High Priest (the reality of those things). However he rejected the priests, high priest and Jews which rejected him and his teaching.

The Pharisee doctrine, traditions and practice which replaced, added to or take away from the Word of God through the Prophets and Moses he did encourage the Jews and his disciples to reject, when they agreed he encouraged them to accept.

(Matt 16:12, 2) Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

(Mark 7:7,8,9) (Matt 23:3,4,23)
Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

(Acts 4:18,19,20)
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

God Bless.

OK, this makes no sense. You think all they used was scripture? What about the direct teachings that Christ gave them? He showed them the OT scriptures and He explained it. All the Church does is pass on the teachings Jesus gave us, that were not written down. We are told, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” - 2 Thess 2:15. So it is what is written and what is taught orally. By your statement, where does the Bible fit in?

You reference Hebrews 10, but do you understand that book was written to Christians, who were thinking about returning to Judaism? The reference to the blood of Christ vs the blood of bulls is about Christianity vs Judaism. The OT sacrifice is a foreshadow of what Jesus does, but this has nothing to do with John 6 or the Real Presence. This passage is comparing the Cross vs the OT sacrifice. BTW, the OT sacrifice never forgives sin, Christ does.

Christ does not condemn the Temple or the Levitical system. Matt 23 says, “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”. He wants our hearts, not empty praise or hypocrisy. But, He wants us to accept His teaching, passed on to us by His Church.

As far as communion, if it is only symbolic, how does it benefit us? If it is only symbolic, why does Paul talk about receiving unworthily being sin against the Body and Blood of Christ? Why did Jesus use the word for “to gnaw or chew” in John 6 instead of the normal word for “to eat or consume”. Why didn’t Jesus correct the Disciples in John 6, like He did elsewhere?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mrjinx,

All of this to show that the Apostles taught according to Scripture?

The only real snag in this argument you are putting forward is that the first word of New Testament scripture had not yet been written by 47AD (wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_earliest_book_written_in_the_New_Testament) So, the only thing that could be reviewed by these early Catholic converts and Jews was the Old Testament.

SS is not proven by any of the text you provided. The real issue is that not everything is written down in Scripture. And, as I have previously told you, John tells us this twice - just in case we were not paying attention the first time!

But here is one you may want to look at carefully - it is from this Sunday’s Gospel (4th Sunday in Ordinary Time according to the Latin Rite). Mark 1:21-28. Now, what I found interesting is that Jesus is just starting off His Public Ministry - and He goes to Capernaum and stays there one week BEFORE going to local synagogue to preach and expel a demon. So, what do you think He did during the week He stayed there … where did He say? Did He pray? do any miracles? teach the Apostles? Say and do nothing for a week? Nothing is said - but, He had to do something to keep the interest of His Apostles.

Ultimately, finding a justification for everything through Scripture is going to lead to failure and frustration because Scripture only has part of the answer. Besides, there is this problem with personal interpretation of Scripture - and how we have 30,000+ Protestant groups today. None of them can agree on the fundamentals! The proof is right there in the yellow pages of your phone book under ‘Church, Protestant’.

God bless

Hi Newsy,

]Jesus came in fulfillment of scripture and to fulfill the scriptures,

(Matt 5: 17,18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He taught in accordance with scripture and what scripture predicted of him he did not conflict with scripture.

(Matt 13:35) That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

(Matt 26:53,54)
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

(Luke 24: 25,27, 44)
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The Apostles weather by word , letter or tradition, taught in accordance with scripture not in conflict with scripture,

(Acts 17:11) The Berean’s were complemented because they received the word of Paul and Silas and checked it against scriptures to determine if they were true

Surely if they checked the scriptures, to prove what was being said to them was true by Paul and Silas, this would suggest they were speaking in accordance with scripture.

It was Paul practice ( or you can say tradition) to use the scripture to reason with them (this is Old Testament)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
(Acts18:24, Acts18:28, Romans1:2, Romans4:3, Romans9:17, Romans10:11
Romans11:2, Romans15:4,Romans16:26, 1 Corinthians15:3,1 Corinthians15:4
Galatians3:8, Galatians3:22, 2 Timothy3:16, 2 Timothy3:15.)

I can go on with this and with other apostles to prove their practice weather by word of mouth or by letter or by tradition they were in accordance with scripture not in contradiction of scripture.

Hebrew 10. I agree deals with christian Jews who were thinking to return to Judaism however the Passover and all that the earthly temple and it system, represented Jesus and his life and ministry.
The bread and fruit of the vine (the communion) was instituted by Jesus to represent his body and blood (his death) and that it might be remembered by his followers.

The Jewish system foreshadowed Jesus life, sacrifice and his priestly ministry, the Jews looked forward to Messiah coming (which largely they rejected) we look backward to Jesus having come and died through the Lord Supper. the same bread for the Passover was used for the Lord Supper.

Christ does not condemned the temple and the Lavitical system they represented His Ministry and the Heavenly Temple in which he is Priest and High Priest (the reality of those things). However he rejected the priests, high priest and Jews which rejected him and his teaching.

The Pharisee doctrine, traditions and practice which replaced, added to or take away from the Word of God through the Prophets and Moses he did encourage the Jews and his disciples to reject, when they agreed he encouraged them to accept.

(Matt 16:12, 2) Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

(Mark 7:7,8,9) (Matt 23:3,4,23)
Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

(Acts 4:18,19,20)
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

God Bless.

 

[Safia]

Hi Newsy,

Can you explain how any of your post proves sola scriptura? You’re reading the Bible narrowly, yet again.

(Acts 17:11) The Berean’s were complemented because they received the word of Paul and Silas and checked it against scriptures to determine if they were true. Surely if they checked the scriptures, to prove what was being said to them was true by Paul and Silas, this would suggest they were speaking in accordance with scripture.

Here we see the verse “they searched the Scriptures.” This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage, though you do not succeed in doing so, as that’s not what the passage says). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God’s word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean’s use of sola scriptura.

Everything that you listed is narrowly reading Scripture. Can you prove to me how all those individual readings → sola scriptura? If you read them within context, you’ll soon find they disprove it very quickly.

As for 2 Timothy 3:16:

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because "teleioi"and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

(Luke 24: 25,27, 44)
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Just a bit further on, in Luke 24:47, Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
(Acts18:24, Acts18:28, Romans1:2, Romans4:3, Romans9:17, Romans10:11
Romans11:2, Romans15:4,Romans16:26, 1 Corinthians15:3,1 Corinthians15:4
Galatians3:8, Galatians3:22, 2 Timothy3:16, 2 Timothy3:15.)

How do you deal with the following?

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.
I can go on with this and with other apostles to prove their practice weather by word of mouth or by letter or by tradition they were in accordance with scripture not in contradiction of scripture.

(Mark 7:7,8,9) (Matt 23:3,4,23)
Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Err, yep, this is something that will point you to Catholicism. If you read this in context, what are being condemned are the traditions that are counter to God’s – so the traditions and the oral teaching of the apostles is more than a-okay in this situation.

(Acts 4:18,19,20)
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

Are you purposely reading Acts 4 out of context? Peter and John heal a man, and the priests along with the Sadducees tell P + J to no longer preach in Jesus’ name, despite the fact that they healed a man and everyone witnessed it. So P + J tell them: For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. In other words, We must speak about Jesus.
To be cont…

 

[Safia]

Here’s Scriptural proof for oral tradition. I can give you Church Fathers, if you want them.

I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.
To be cont…

 

[Safia]

II. Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God’s word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God’s law of honoring one’s father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary.

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) means “to hand on” teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord’s day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!”

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth.

1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God.

1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been “entrusted” to you. The word “entrusted” is “paratheke” which means a “deposit.” Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is “tradition,” or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.
To be cont…

 

[Safia]

III. Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the “beloved disciple” is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement (“it is better to give than to receive”) of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - “awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light.”

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
1 Timothy 3:15

“If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the “canon of Scripture” at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pinnacle and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church’s compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn’t know this we could be led into error. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an “inspired table of contents.” Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject “Cafeteria Catholicism”).

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said “the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.
To be cont…

 

[Safia]

2 Thessalonians 2:15

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

As we have discussed, Protestants believe that Christians are to follow the Scriptures alone as their sole source of Christian truth (sola Scriptura). But then why does Saint Paul tell us to follow both the Scriptures and the oral word? Isn’t Paul adding something else to follow in addition to the Bible? Yes he is, because the doctrine of sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine.

Saint Paul is saying that obeying the written tradition (the Scriptures) is not enough. We must also obey the oral tradition. This is the body of teaching that Christ gave the apostles that was not written down (if it were, Saint John says that “even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25). In other words, it’s everything else the Church teaches on faith and morals. We can be thankful for the oral apostolic traditions which have definitively taught us about the Blessed Trinity, the two natures of Christ (human and divine), the union of those natures (hypostatic union), the Filioque (the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), and the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible and what books do not). All of these teachings, and many, many more, are not explicitly taught in the Bible, yet are generally believed by all Christians. To learn more about the oral apostolic tradition, buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) which means “to hand on” from one generation to the next.

Moreover, the Protestant argument is also refuted by the way in which the Church selected the Bible canon. While the last apostle John died around 100 A.D., the Bible was not finally compiled until 397 A.D. The Church was thus required to rely upon the oral apostolic tradition during this 300 year period in order to determine which letters were inspired and which letters were not. The tradition they depended on, of course, did not come from the mouths of the apostles (they were deceased), but from their successors. (There is also no reason to conclude that the Church should listen to the fourth, fifth or sixth generation of apostolic successors, but not to later successors such as those of our day).

We should also note that the apostolic traditions Paul is commanding us to follow in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are not the same as the Pharisaical traditions that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:9. The traditions Jesus condemned dealt with the Old Testament ceremonial rituals and other acts that contravened the New Testament Gospel. So there are certain human traditions that, if contrary to the Gospel, we must reject, and oral apostolic tradition, as Paul commands, which we must accept.

The only other argument the Protestant can make is that, once the Bible was compiled, all oral apostolic tradition was committed to the Scriptures. As a result, the requirement to follow oral tradition ceased. But this they cannot prove from the Bible. There is nothing in the Scriptures that commands us to follow oral tradition until the Bible is compiled, and then to follow the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible). In fact, Jesus never even commanded any of His apostles to write anything down. They were only charged to “preach the Gospel to all creation.” Matthew 28:19. Because the Scriptures are the living word of God which is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Hebrews 13:10), and there is no verse in Scripture that repudiates Paul’s instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we must also obey the oral tradition of the Church as Paul commanded, or we are not being faithful to the Scriptures.
God bless.

 

[Newsy]

Safia,
Great posts, very thorough:thumbsup:

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Safia,

Great set of posts! I do not think you missed anything.

God bless

2 Thessalonians 2:15

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

As we have discussed, Protestants believe that Christians are to follow the Scriptures alone as their sole source of Christian truth (sola Scriptura). But then why does Saint Paul tell us to follow both the Scriptures and the oral word? Isn’t Paul adding something else to follow in addition to the Bible? Yes he is, because the doctrine of sola Scriptura is an erroneous doctrine.

Saint Paul is saying that obeying the written tradition (the Scriptures) is not enough. We must also obey the oral tradition. This is the body of teaching that Christ gave the apostles that was not written down (if it were, Saint John says that “even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25). In other words, it’s everything else the Church teaches on faith and morals. We can be thankful for the oral apostolic traditions which have definitively taught us about the Blessed Trinity, the two natures of Christ (human and divine), the union of those natures (hypostatic union), the Filioque (the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), and the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible and what books do not). All of these teachings, and many, many more, are not explicitly taught in the Bible, yet are generally believed by all Christians. To learn more about the oral apostolic tradition, buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is so troubling to the sola Scriptura position, Protestants often argue that the oral tradition Paul is referring to had to come from the mouths of the apostles. Their argument further goes that, since all the apostles are deceased, we no longer have to follow oral tradition. This argument, however, cannot be proven from Scripture (which should be possible if sola Scriptura were true) and, in fact, is contrary to Scripture. See for example, 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul (1st generation) instructs Timothy (2nd generation) to teach others the faith (3rd generation) who will be able to teach others also (4th generation). Such an argument is also inconsistent with the very meaning of tradition (in Greek, “paradosis”) which means “to hand on” from one generation to the next.

Moreover, the Protestant argument is also refuted by the way in which the Church selected the Bible canon. While the last apostle John died around 100 A.D., the Bible was not finally compiled until 397 A.D. The Church was thus required to rely upon the oral apostolic tradition during this 300 year period in order to determine which letters were inspired and which letters were not. The tradition they depended on, of course, did not come from the mouths of the apostles (they were deceased), but from their successors. (There is also no reason to conclude that the Church should listen to the fourth, fifth or sixth generation of apostolic successors, but not to later successors such as those of our day).

We should also note that the apostolic traditions Paul is commanding us to follow in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 are not the same as the Pharisaical traditions that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:3 and Mark 7:9. The traditions Jesus condemned dealt with the Old Testament ceremonial rituals and other acts that contravened the New Testament Gospel. So there are certain human traditions that, if contrary to the Gospel, we must reject, and oral apostolic tradition, as Paul commands, which we must accept.

The only other argument the Protestant can make is that, once the Bible was compiled, all oral apostolic tradition was committed to the Scriptures. As a result, the requirement to follow oral tradition ceased. But this they cannot prove from the Bible. There is nothing in the Scriptures that commands us to follow oral tradition until the Bible is compiled, and then to follow the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible). In fact, Jesus never even commanded any of His apostles to write anything down. They were only charged to “preach the Gospel to all creation.” Matthew 28:19. Because the Scriptures are the living word of God which is the same yesterday, today and forever (cf. Hebrews 13:10), and there is no verse in Scripture that repudiates Paul’s instruction in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we must also obey the oral tradition of the Church as Paul commanded, or we are not being faithful to the Scriptures.
God bless.

 

[Newsy]

Hi Newsy,

]Jesus came in fulfillment of scripture and to fulfill the scriptures,

We agree on this.

(Matt 5: 17,18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He taught in accordance with scripture and what scripture predicted of him he did not conflict with scripture.

But, he added to the OT Scriptures. remember, “The law says…But I tell you…”

The Apostles weather by word , letter or tradition, taught in accordance with scripture not in conflict with scripture,

Wrong. We see clearly that many parts of the OT are conflicted. Peter receives a vision calling all animals good. They then reject the “clean animal only” rules given to them in the OT. We see Peter eat with a Gentile, that was forbidden under OT law. So, we see them conflicting with the OT Scripture.

(Acts 17:11) The Berean’s were complemented because they received the word of Paul and Silas and checked it against scriptures to determine if they were true

Surely if they checked the scriptures, to prove what was being said to them was true by Paul and Silas, this would suggest they were speaking in accordance with scripture.

As you mentioned earlier, this is the OT Scriptures. This never says the only rule was scripture alone, they accepted the Oral Teaching of Christ.

The bread and fruit of the vine (the communion) was instituted by Jesus to represent his body and blood (his death) and that it might be remembered by his followers.

I would say that it IS His Body and Blood, not represents. That is supported by John 6, but I digress.

Christ does not condemned the temple and the Lavitical system they represented His Ministry and the Heavenly Temple in which he is Priest and High Priest (the reality of those things). However he rejected the priests, high priest and Jews which rejected him and his teaching.

The Pharisee doctrine, traditions and practice which replaced, added to or take away from the Word of God through the Prophets and Moses he did encourage the Jews and his disciples to reject, when they agreed he encouraged them to accept.

(Matt 16:12, 2) Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

God Bless.

He was condemning the hypocrisy, not the system. They never rejected the authority of the priesthood or the Temple. In fact, Christ is silent while on trial until the High Priest demands an answer from Him. He answered the High Priest because of the authority of the office.

Otherwise, the other posters have addressed everything very well.