The historicity of the Church

[joe371]

OK Blessings.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, we were talking about Papal doctrine, Papal office… “There are Catholics who believe in the Pope and there are Protestants, who do not believe in that office. That’s it (except for the Orthodox). It’s not thousands of interpretations on this matter, just two”, per previous post.

My brother in Christ, the pope is NOT a person,but an office. Why is that so difficult for Protestants to accept? The pope is a bishop and bishops are an office.

Agreed. Two is too many. One would be nice but…I would be more accurate to say we only reject papal authority and not all church authority… Yes, denominations may be the result, as the Jews in OT had factions also yet all were Jewish, as we in NT are part of the Body…Still, agree and understand your abhorrence to division from having no pope. That is one end of the spectrum. Now, would you think there is another end to that spectrum that is unfortunate, even to be abhorred also, with a pope ?

You reject it…because? And yet many Protestant denominations do not even have clergy (bishops,priests,deacons) so why the bitter taste against an established office? Read early church history and they are mentioned from early.

So the pope is responsible for divisions? So having no pope made matters better? How so?

I mentioned churches that had no pope but “pappas” as in the Orthodox, who use that term for their bishops. They are doing “well”. Are you saying they (Orthodox) all decide for themselves true meaning without the head pope ?

The term “pappas” is not the issue here. The issue here is the direct refusal to accept the office. The Orthodox are doing well? Depends what you mean by “well” in the larger context. Since they do not have a “head” bishop-tell me who speaks and decides for all of Orthodoxy?

OK when it comes from the mouth of the apostles. Just like today’s successors take the Lord’s written word thru them as legit.

Yes…the written word penned at a later date. The offices were already established (indeed more fluid),nonetheless, they were taught and preached orally before the NT. Agree?

 

[Nicea325]

I agreed to not alone as in His Word vs Written Word or that both have existed. I asked then if His Word is above His Written Word ?

Yes both existed…I agree. How can His oral Word be at odds with His Written Words? How can His Word (oral or written) be in conflict? I don’t get your point here.

Tell me, would God ever contradict Himself in Writing or by Word ?

Of course not!

Therefore I would say if one claims He is giving new Words, they must align with the authority of His Written Word, for surely they will no contradict but be united.

Exactly! Because God never said everything would be linked to written Words alone. Both Oral and Written go hand-in-hand-agree?

The response by some would be if it is a late innovation it is in response or inevitable outcome of an intermediary innovation of the Church or Tradition having infallible authority over and thru Scripture…Is not this our history ?

Then those with such a response know little to nothing of church history and the Bible. The CC has NEVER said it is above God’s Word-written or oral. If so,please provide me a source supporting such a claim? Second, how can a fallible church provide us a infallible source (Compiled Bible)? Third, why would Jesus flat out not grant His church infallibility for hundreds of years until the finalization of the canon?

 

[joe371]

Nicea325;11938632]My brother in Christ, the pope is NOT a person,but an office. Why is that so difficult for Protestants to accept? The pope is a bishop and bishops are an office.

What is interesting about the Catholic Church in the city of Rome, is that the name of every bishop, in an unbroken line, can be traced back to Peter, where the Petrine office began. In terms of recognizing apostolic succession that particular line of bishops was the most important to the early Catholic Church.

Read early church history and they are mentioned from early.

So the pope is responsible for divisions? So having no pope made matters better? How so?

Good point. Sol acriptura is what divides, sadly. The Petrine office is the key to unity and the reason why Jesus said that even the gates of hell would never prevail against the church built on Kepha.

The term “pappas” is not the issue here. The issue here is the direct refusal to accept the office. The Orthodox are doing well? Depends what you mean by “well” in the larger context. Since they do not have a “head” bishop-tell me who speaks and decides for all of Orthodoxy?

Is there just one Orthodox church or several, in terms of authority, as opposed to doctrine? There is one Catholic Church but I don’t think the same can be said about the autocephalous orthodox churches…

Yes…the written word penned at a later date. The offices were already established (indeed more fluid),nonetheless, they were taught and preached orally before the NT. Agree?

I always thought it was interesting, as a former non-Catholic, that the Catholic Church existed long before the the bible (NT) was codified, in the 4th century. Sola scriptura simply could not have worked until the printing press. One fact that can be proven: not one Protestant Church existed until the 16th century, at best, which means that none of those churches are the church of Matthew 16, which is why so many, I believe, reject the Petrine office. To me, the key (no pun intended - Lol) to maintaining this incredible unity has been thePetrine office, and will continue to be the Petrine office established by Jesus, until His return.

 

[joe371]

Yes both existed…I agree. How can His oral Word be at odds with His Written Words? How can His Word (oral or written) be in conflict? I don’t get your point here.

Exactly! Because God never said everything would be linked to written Words alone. Both Oral and Written go hand-in-hand-agree?

Then those with such a response know little to nothing of church history and the Bible. The CC has NEVER said it is above God’s Word-written or oral. If so,please provide me a source supporting such a claim? Second, how can a fallible church provide us a infallible source (Compiled Bible)? Third, why would Jesus flat out not grant His church infallibility for hundreds of years until the finalization of the canon?

If those who say that the Petrine office is a late innovation (of course that’s not true) and therefore not from God, then surely every non-Catholic church (except the EO churches) and the practice of Sola scriptura should be outright rejected as well for the same reasons!

 

[benhur]

My brother in Christ, the pope is NOT a person,but an office. Why is that so difficult for Protestants to accept? The pope is a bishop and bishops are an office.

Not sure what you mean. We understand the offices, both what we accept and what we reject in CC terms. From previous posts:
“Papal office…who do not believe in that office”

You reject it…because? And yet many Protestant denominations do not even have clergy (bishops,priests,deacons) so why the bitter taste against an established office? Read early church history and they are mentioned from early.

I would think it is rejected on scriptural and historical and ECF’s interpretations.Don’t know of any church that has no clergy. Biblically bishop=presbyter (priest) and is similar to “elder”. A pastor qualifies as presbyter/elder.

So the pope is responsible for divisions? So having no pope made matters better? How so?

No, divisions is one end spectrum of problems in the church. I understand the CC abhorence for this and how they feel the office of pope could help eliminate. The other end of spectrum has to do with too much central authority, too much power or abuse of them as is possible when you do have a pope. This is something O or P may see and abhor and more readily than a C (as you see division more easily).

The term “pappas” is not the issue here. The issue here is the direct refusal to accept the office. The Orthodox are doing well? Depends what you mean by “well” in the larger context. Since they do not have a “head” bishop-tell me who speaks and decides for all of Orthodoxy?

“Well” in terms of “division” that you abhor due to lack of pope/office… I suppose O have councils like early church did to determine"orthodoxy"- you know , get all the "pappas " together. Have they done that?

 

[benhur]

Yes both existed…I agree. How can His oral Word be at odds with His Written Words? How can His Word (oral or written) be in conflict? I don’t get your point here.

The point then is any new oral Word, or rhema revelation, must be in line with, can not contradict, and has the Written word to answer to.

Exactly! Because God never said everything would be linked to written Words alone. Both Oral and Written go hand-in-hand-agree?

You are evading the issue. It is not about if has He written about everything or not. It is about that every Word is subject to His written Word and is One with it .That is all. So if he says a million things and only writes a thousand, the million will and must be in line with the thousand.

Then those with such a response know little to nothing of church history and the Bible. The CC has NEVER said it is above God’s Word-written or oral. If so,please provide me a source supporting such a claim?

Did not say Church was over “oral/tradition”. The battle is Church/tradition/oral and the role of Written scripture. It is that CC says scripture and God’s interpretation do not stand by themselves but only as interpreted by Church/tradition/oral/council, and that infallibly.

Second, how can a fallible church provide us a infallible source (Compiled Bible)?

Well God gave us His Written Word. He did most of the work, even helping us be obedient to the revelations and inspiration. How could Jesus tell Peter ,“Satan get behind me”, moments after, “the Father in heaven has shown you this and you are a rock” ?

Third, why would Jesus flat out not grant His church infallibility for hundreds of years until the finalization of the canon?

Well we must define infallibility. We must define just what His promises were and just how He fulfills them. The church had problems, big ones as scripture tells us. I agree with you, He was (is) an infallible Shepherd before canon, and afterward.

 

[josie_L]

You are evading the issue. It is not about if has He written about everything or not. It is about that every Word is subject to His written Word and is One with it .That is all. So if he says a million things and only writes a thousand, the million will and must be in line with the thousand.

But you work under the premise that only the Written Word is valid, i.e., you have discounted the possibility of their being an oral tradition (equally as valid as Scripture). Scripture makes it plain that an oral tradition does exist (St. Paul speaks of it several times).

Did not say Church was over “oral/tradition”. The battle is Church/tradition/oral and the role of Written scripture. It is that CC says scripture and God’s interpretation do not stand by themselves but only as interpreted by Church/tradition/oral/council, and that infallibly. Well God gave us His Written Word. He did most of the work, even helping us be obedient to the revelations and inspiration.

No, Scripture cannot stand by itself and the Church fathers (those whom Jesus committed to lead his Church pilgrimaging on Earth) were clear about that:

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

As written by St. Vincent of Lerins (4th century).

How could Jesus tell Peter ,“Satan get behind me”, moments after, “the Father in heaven has shown you this and you are a rock” ? Well we must define infallibility. We must define just what His promises were and just how He fulfills them. The church had problems, big ones as scripture tells us. I agree with you, He was (is) an infallible Shepherd before canon, and afterward.

And we have defined infallibility, i.e., in what capacity it works and doesn’t work, taking into consideration the scriptural passages you have cited vis a vis papal infallibility.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11940441]Not sure what you mean. We understand the offices, both what we accept and what we reject in CC terms. From previous posts:
“Papal office…who do not believe in that office”

Do you believe that even the gates of hell cannot prevail against Jesus Catholic Church built on rock? “You are cephas and on this cephas”…If the Petrine office of the CC is to be rejected then why should anyone embrace the offices of a Protestant Church, which did not exist until the 16th century at best?

No, divisions is one end spectrum of problems in the church.

Why do you think division has occurred within Christendom? Is it due to the practice of Sola scriptura, (which is when the fracture in Jesus’ Mystical Body became really noticeable) or God’s failure to ineffably guide His church, or another reason?

I understand the CC abhorence for this and how they feel the office of pope could help eliminate. The other end of spectrum has to do with too much central authority, too much power or abuse of them as is possible when you do have a pope.

The authority of the CC, regarding the teachings of Jesus, (and of course abuses will occur from time to time) comes from God alone.

This is something O or P may see and abhor and more readily than a C (as you see division more easily).
“Well” in terms of “division” that you abhor due to lack of pope/office… I suppose O have councils like early church did to determine"orthodoxy"- you know , get all the "pappas " together. Have they done that?

When doctrinal disputes arise, as they did in the past, we trust in God alone to ineffably guide His Catholic Church as God did in Acts 15, Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus etc… To trust in the Catholic Church is to put your trust in God alone.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11940508]The point then is any new oral Word, or rhema revelation, must be in line with, can not contradict, and has the Written word to answer to.

That seems reasonable. Where in scripture does scripture say that “any new oral Word, or rhema revelation, must be in line with, can not contradict, and has the Written word to answer to”?

 

[joe371]

benhur
Did not say Church was over “oral/tradition”. The battle is Church/tradition/oral and the role of Written scripture. It is that CC says scripture and God’s interpretation do not stand by themselves but only as interpreted by Church/tradition/oral/council, and that infallibly.

God’s word is infallibly taught by God alone, via the church established by God alone. Jesus said: I will build my church…as opposed to another church established by me, Luther, Smith, my sisters Pastor, who started his church about 30 years ago etc…

 

[joe371]

How could Jesus tell Peter ,“Satan get behind me”, moments after, “the Father in heaven has shown you this and you are a rock” ? Well we must define infallibility. We must define just what His promises were and just how He fulfills them. The church had problems, big ones as scripture tells us. I agree with you, He was (is) an infallible Shepherd before canon, and afterward.

Easy answer. Later Jesus says to Peter: "But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Peter alone among the apostles, (after his moment of weakness; after all he is a fallible man) is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren.”

Infallibility is easy to understand if we do not over think it: the Holy Spirit, sent to Jesus’ church on Pentecost, preserves the teachings established by Jesus within Jesus’ Catholic Church, and will continue to do so, until the end of time. Thank God…

 

[Nicea325]

Not sure what you mean. We understand the offices, both what we accept and what we reject in CC terms. From previous posts:
"
Papal office…who do not believe in that office"

Apparently those who reject it are really confused. How can you accept the offices clearly stated in the NT;however, not believe in the papacy? The papacy is an office and who is a…bishop. I do not understand their logic. Seems more like personal gripe and prejudice. I can dislike the president,but does not change the fact it is an established office.

Nicea Quote:
You reject it…because? And yet many Protestant denominations do not even have clergy (bishops,priests,deacons) so why the bitter taste against an established office? Read early church history and they are mentioned from early.

I would think it is rejected on scriptural and historical and ECF’s interpretations.

I beg your pardon? What early church history are you reading? Name one ECF who flat out who did not believe in that office? Rjected it? Considered to be a usurpation from Christ? No offense,but the ECF were not Protestants.

So tell me,if the CC is so wrong,which denomination has the correct church structure?

Don’t know of any church that has no clergy. Biblically bishop=presbyter (priest) and is similar to “elder”. A pastor qualifies as presbyter/elder.

Really? You mean every single denomination has valid orders? And no, not every pastor is a priest or bishop. Just because they say so does not make it a fact of history. Again…it is an established office in the NT and not everyone in the NT was an elder ( priest) .

Nicea Quote:
So the pope is responsible for divisions? So having no pope made matters better? How so?

No, divisions is one end spectrum of problems in the church. I understand the CC abhorence for this and how they feel the office of pope could help eliminate. The other end of spectrum has to do with too much central authority, too much power or abuse of them as is possible when you do have a pope. This is something O or P may see and abhor and more readily than a C (as you see division more easily).

To much central authority? Then question God…not the church. Jesus speaks of Kingdom…not democracies. And who is the central authority of everything,visible and invisible? God. Who is the central head of the church? Jesus. Why would Jesus pick 12 men with full authority, if he did not want His church to have to “much” central authority? No where in the NT are the lay folks making all of the decisions for the Church Christ founded- in matters of faith and morals. The Apostles and their successors are the ones. Nme one lay person involved in defining and ratifying the doctrine of the Trinity or Hypostatic Union at Nicaea (325 AD) or any council? Do not angels have ranks as well? Yep! Who is their central authority? God!

God can set up His church any fashion he chooses and if chooses to have a mortal as head on earth-then so be it! And what have been the end results with a lack of central authority? More unity or less unity? You tell me…

NiceaQuote:
The term “pappas” is not the issue here. The issue here is the direct refusal to accept the office. The Orthodox are doing well? Depends what you mean by “well” in the larger context. Since they do not have a “head” bishop-tell me who speaks and decides for all of Orthodoxy?

“Well” in terms of “division” that you abhor due to lack of pope/office… I suppose O have councils like early church did to determine"orthodoxy"- you know , get all the "pappas " together. Have they done that?

And yet at those councils…who was included? The pope. He may not have been physically present,but nonetheless, his legates were sent as representatives and no one rejected them. Do have an instance at a council were other bishops shared Protestant views:

We do not believe in that office because it is not scriptural or historically correct

Where are those protests from the beginning? Where are those **written protests **from the ECF,which you claim is where the opposition is from?

 

[josie_L]

And yet at those councils…who was included? The pope. He may not have been physically present,but nonetheless, his legates were sent as representatives and no one rejected them. Do have an instance at a council were other bishops shared Protestant views:

The pope did not physically present himself at councils because he was needed in Rome to deliberate the many appeals from throughout the Church, i.e., by the 4th century it was already customary for the pope along with a coterie of bishops (Roman synod), to resolve appeals (much like a last court of appeals as specified in the councils of Sardica and Trullo).

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Yes both existed…I agree. How can His oral Word be at odds with His Written Words? How can His Word (oral or written) be in conflict? I don’t get your point here.

The point then is any new oral Word, or rhema revelation, must be in line with, can not contradict, and has the Written word to answer to.

Which begs the question: Where does Jesus or Scripture ever declare the bolded words as “the” condition- as you propose?

You are using the infamous Bible-only premise.

NiceaQuote:
Exactly! Because God never said everything would be linked to written Words alone. Both Oral and Written go hand-in-hand-agree?

You are evading the issue. It is not about if has He written about everything or not. It is about that **every Word is subject to His written Word and is One with it **.That is all. So if he says a million things and only writes a thousand, the million will and must be in line with the thousand

.

And you denying and rejecting a historical fact of the church and injecting pure conjecture which the Bible and early church never taught or teaches. Again, where does Scripture or Jesus teach:

…every Word is subject to His written Word and is One with it .

Where does the Bible explicitly state the above words?

NiceaQuote:
Then those with such a response know little to nothing of church history and the Bible. The CC has NEVER said it is above God’s Word-written or oral. If so,please provide me a source supporting such a claim?

Did not say Church was over “oral/tradition”. The battle is Church/tradition/oral and the role of Written scripture.

Battle? And who has made it a battle? Did God say church/tradtion.oral and scripture are to be battles? That is an either/or dichotomy. It is both/and dichotomy. Not sure what makes you believe it is a battle.

It is that CC says scripture and God’s interpretation do not stand by themselves but only as interpreted by Church/tradition/oral/council, and that infallibly.

Yes…Scripture is interpretated under the lens of that Apostolic Tradition entrusted to them by Jesus and from them to the church. Where is the error with such a practice and belief?

Nicea 325Quote:
Second, how can a fallible church provide us a infallible source (Compiled Bible)?

Well God gave us His Written Word. He did most of the work, even helping us be obedient to the revelations and inspiration.

He gave us His inspired Word via and through His instruments…called men. Bible did not fall from Heaven. Yes and also obedient to His Church! How can one be obedient to God’s Words and exclude His church from those very Words? Again…Protestants have made it an either/or dichotomy.

How could Jesus tell Peter ,“Satan get behind me”, moments after, “the Father in heaven has shown you this and you are a rock” ?

And why did Jesus call Peter Satan? Do ya think Peter was trying to place his own human will over God’s? Similar to the devil: It is about me,myself, and I.

Nicea325Quote:
Third, why would Jesus flat out not grant His church infallibility for hundreds of years until the finalization of the canon?

Well we must define infallibility.

No need to define it because it has been defined long before you and I existed my friend.

We must define just what His promises were and just how He fulfills them.

Did the OT authors need a definition or were they fallible humans writing infallible Words? Any qulams so far? Aaahhh…appears infallibility was already in place long before God incarnated.

The church had problems, big ones as scripture tells us.

Of course…Jesus founded His church for the sinners…why is it such a mystery in regards to problems?

I agree with you, He was (is) an infallible Shepherd before canon, and afterward.

Yes…which also includes His Mystical Body (Eph 1:22-23). Obviously it is sanctified.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

To much central authority? Then question God…not the church.

Yeah.
MEN reject the authority that GOD has put in place. They abhor the structure that Jesus established.

And yet they support divisions, which are clearly considered sinful in scriptures.

And they say that WE are the ones that don’t follow scripture???

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It is not about if has He written about everything or not. It is about that every Word is subject to His written Word and is One with it .That is all. So if he says a million things and only writes a thousand, the million will and must be in line with the thousand.

True. So long as the thousand are properly understood (interpreted).

Did not say Church was over “oral/tradition”. The battle is Church/tradition/oral and the role of Written scripture. It is that CC says scripture and God’s interpretation do not stand by themselves but only as interpreted by Church/tradition/oral/council, and that infallibly.

Scripture, indeed any written statement, is always interpreted. That’s one of the limitations of language, and has been that way at least since Babel.

The question is: do you follow the interpretations of the authoritative leaders established by God, or do you follow your own fallible interpretations, or that of some other fallible man?

Yes, the pope is fallible. Except in the few places where, due only to the promised protection of the Holy Spirit, he is guaranteed to be infallible.

God IS capable of doing such things, and He has promised to do just that.

How could Jesus tell Peter ,“Satan get behind me”, moments after, “the Father in heaven has shown you this and you are a rock” ?

In much the same way that he could write inspired encyclicals (known today as 1st Peter and 2nd Peter). If you believe these books of scripture are inspired, you must understand how wrong your question is.

joe371 has provided a scriptural basis, one of the many, pointing out why we believe this.

Well we must define infallibility. We must define just what His promises were and just how He fulfills them.

Which the Church has done.

 

[Nicea325]

Yeah.
MEN reject the authority that GOD has put in place. They abhor the structure that Jesus established.

And yet they support divisions, which are clearly considered sinful in scriptures.

And they say that WE are the ones that don’t follow scripture???

Yep! Moses sure had the same problem…I do recall people asking Moses to ask God they were in error? Yeah…go figure? How can we be the ones not following scripture when the NT never accepts or encourages divisions. The Reformation is a prime example of what happens when men abhor an authoriative church. They think they have one above God and yet the end results of disobeying a “central” authority speaks volumes.

 

[Nicea325]

True. So long as the thousand are properly understood (interpreted).

Scripture, indeed any written statement, is always interpreted. That’s one of the limitations of language, and has been that way at least since Babel.

The question is: do you follow the interpretations of the authoritative leaders established by God, or do you follow your own fallible interpretations, or that of some other fallible man?

Yes, the pope is fallible. Except in the few places where, due only to the promised protection of the Holy Spirit, he is guaranteed to be infallible.

God IS capable of doing such things, and He has promised to do just that.

In much the same way that he could write inspired encyclicals (known today as 1st Peter and 2nd Peter). If you believe these books of scripture are inspired, you must understand how wrong your question is.

joe371 has provided a scriptural basis, one of the many, pointing out why we believe this.

Which the Church has done.

I find it amazing how many non-Catholics present a message as though the CC was in the dark until the Reformation? I did not know Christianity was truly discovered until the 1500’s? God sure likes to play games with us humans.

 

[benhur]

But you work under the premise that only the Written Word is valid, i.e., you have discounted the possibility of their being an oral tradition (equally as valid as Scripture). Scripture makes it plain that an oral tradition does exist (St. Paul speaks of it several times).
No, Scripture cannot stand by itself and the Church fathers (those whom Jesus committed to lead his Church pilgrimaging on Earth) were clear about that

As written by St. Vincent of Lerins (4th century).

And we have defined infallibility, i.e., in what capacity it works and doesn’t work, taking into consideration the scriptural passages you have cited vis a vis papal infallibility.

Then Paul lied if he said scripture is sufficient . that you have tradition or church as the carrier of that scripture or an apostle the writer used by God does not nullify that. For instance how do you or better yet how did the church combat error, even scriptural interpretation error? how did they correct Arius, Celestius, Pelagius etc.? Was it not with scripture itself. Of course scripture by itself literally is powerless with out divine inspiration. of course the oral gospel itself was first a tradition but it was put in writing for a reason. A writing is writing is a writing. God has spoken. His intent stands. That the church and every individual in Him give Him something to stand in is another matter. We must rightly divide what ? Tradition? No, the Word. And then upon that rightly dividing the Word can be Tradition.