[Desdemona]

When Paul and Silas preached in Berea, the people "examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11) Why were they commended if not all doctrine is found in Scripture? Why doesn't this verse say "...except for the things that have been revealed that aren't supported by scripture."? I'll tell you why, because every doctrine that Paul preached to them, and every doctrine that Paul ever preached (and every doctrine that should ever be preached) is found in Scripture!" Anything else is traditions of men, and not suitable for doctrine.

That would be the Old Testament - the WHOLE OT, not the fragment, although it didn't have that name then. Also, Acts was written down after Paul died and the Canon wasn't closed for another 300 years, thus Paul's letters weren't scripture yet, either.

[vrwc1]

That would be the Old Testament - the WHOLE OT, not the fragment, although it didn't have that name then. Also, Acts was written down after Paul died and the Canon wasn't closed for another 300 years, thus Paul's letters weren't scripture yet, either.

Doesn't matter - they were commended for checking everything against scripture, which serves as an example for us. You think he taught them doctrine that isn't in his letters and that isn't supported by scripture? I don't.