This is, as the title suggests, a response to another post. It may be easier to read that one first or at least side by side with this. I have used the same headings and tried to respond in the order of that argument.
The topic of debate here concerns the validity of extra-Biblical Church Tradition. To that end, I'd like to skip over two points in your response. If you want me to address any of them, don't hesitate to ask and I will. These include: intercessions of the 'dead' and fallibilty and infallibility. For both of these, you are making your case from Scripture, which makes them a matter of scriptural exegesis and not of extra-Biblical tradition.
(Sufficiency of Oral Transmission)
You write that I "seem to assume that since the NT Scriptures were written down within the first two generations of the Church (from, presumably, A.D. 50s-90s), that all had ready access to those Scriptures." I do not. Near the end my comment, I wrote, "The incomplete status of Scripture during the first century necessitated oral Tradition; the sufficiency of the completed Scripture today makes such oral Tradition obsolete. Two options exist for those local congregations that did not have all of the NT: 1) They made do with what they had (unlikely, since the whole of Tradition is not only sufficient, but necessary); 2) they relied on oral Tradition." As I indicated, I believe option 2 to be more likely and I am willing to extend this necessity for oral transmission of the Tradition for as long as the entire canon had not been made available. I concluded, "There is, however, no argument here that the legitimate content of that Tradition was any more than what is contained in the NT." [Or, for that matter, all of Scripture- OT included.]
(Sufficiency of Scripture for faith and practice)
Am I to understand that Judaism recognized a larger group of books than is in their present Scripture but allowed a council at Jamnia to throw some of them out just to spite the Christians? I don't think so. Anyway, see here. The author writes:
So far, we have seen that the canonicity of from six to eight books was discussed by the rabbis, all but one of which are in the third of the present divisions of the Hebrew Bible. Unless one considers the books of Hamiram to have been real candidates for canonicity, only books in the present canon were even mentioned.
The defensive nature of the discussion suggests that the rabbis were trying to justify the status quo rather than campaigning for or against candidates for admission. There is no hint that any of the books discussed was of recent vintage or of any other than traditional authorship. The questions which are raised, in fact, are just the sort that are still being raised today among people with similar theology and interests. These involve internal considerations only, and it appears that no other lines of questioning were pursued.
The LXX itself gives support to the fact that the LXX contained more than the Jewish canon. Neither the LXX nor the Apostles' use thereof supports the extra material in the LXX as canon. The Reformers used the Apocrypha. The original KJV, a Protestant translation, included the Apocrypha between the Testaments. The Belgic Confession, Art. 6 states, "The church may certainly read these [Apocryphal] books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books." None of which is evidence that they considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture. I need more than just usage and appreciation as evidence that the early Church considered these books canonical.
In regard to your charge that the sufficiency of Scripture cannot be justified from Scripture, I refer you back to Revelation 22:18,19, mentioned in my previous response. The prohibition against substraction or addition implies, in turn, both the neccessity and sufficiency of Scripture. I Corinthians13:8-10, "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they shall pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." Cessationists interpret "the perfect" to mean the completed Scripture. This is understood in relation to the intended function of prophecies, tongues, and knowledge. Prophecies would relate to the office of a prophet, which, together with that of apostle formed the foundation of the church. The foundational purpose of both was to establish church tradition. In the following chapter, Paul sets up some rules for speaking in tongues in the church. No one could speak in tongues unless there was someone to interpret. Earlier, Paul had asked what good it was to speak in tongues unless he brought "some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching" (14:6). It appears from putting this together that tongues were not given for Charismatic chaos, but in order to act as a supplement for the as yet incomplete Scripture. Knowledge is a bit more illusive. It can't be taken in its broadest sense. Paul is not promising a day when everyone will suddenly be stupid. Noting that it is mentioned in the list of 14:6, it might be the immediate ability to exegete the interpreted tongues without benefit of study. Whatever it is, the general idea that Scripture is that which is perfect is not destroyed. Paul is looking forward to the time when there will be something sufficient enough to eliminate the need for all of these other things. When that which is perfect is come, the partial passes away. Scripture is perfect, all that had been uninscripturated tradition was partial. Scripture teaches its own sufficiency.
The dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition would only be false if Scripture justified the content of the Tradition or, if not that, if it could at least justifify the existence of extra-Biblical tradition. There is no false dichotomy in questioning the existence of a tradition that Scripture does not sanction.
My arguments as they regard the long term insufficiency of oral transmission were more in answer to the question of why Scripture is necessary. They speak only indirectly against the continued existence of an oral tradition. I believe, however, that it is sidetracking the discussion so, for the sake of argument I will concede this point: oral transmission is capable of the indefinite and perfect preservation of tradition. Now, where does that get us? We're still left with the fact the Scripture exists. Why does it exist and what does that imply? I denied the current validity of tradition that is not contained in Scripture. You responded- what about before Scripture was complete or completely distributed? And you are quite right: the circumstance of an incomplete scripture does necessitate the validity of an oral tradition, even a tradition that, by definition, is not in Scripture. Such a circumstance, however, does not necessitate the validity of an oral tradition that would not one day be inscripturated. In the absence of an argument that would necessitate the validity of such a an oral tradtion beyond what was needed to supplement incomplete scripture, my claim that extra-Biblical traditions are invalid is not circular. Rather, your own attempt to justify a post-canonical practice by a narrower pre-canonical necessity is a red herring.
(Limiting the Tradition to the Body of Scripture)
"And when they received these written Scriptures, how were they to verify their authority and divine origin? By way of the Tradition; i. e., Tradition substantiated itself in Scripture." No. Let me throw in a little bit of my own church tradition: WCF I.5b, "Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Tradition is not the foundation of Scripture nor is the reverse true. The Holy Spirit is the foundation. He gives the tradition, oversees its inscripturation process, and guides the church in recognizing what is scripture.
The scriptural warrant for Sunday worship is found in Apostolic practice as recorded in Acts. As to the Protestant sacramental views, let's assume that your own are correct. In this case, the depleted practice of many Protestants would not demonstrate that Tradition and Scripture are not coextensive, but that Protestants have a blind spot in their exegesis. Whatever the range of Protestant views, they are all formulated with the intent to follow Scripture. [OK, big exception for Liberal Protestants.]
See above for scriptural warrant that scripture is coextensive with tradition. To the extent that such warrant exists demonstrating that Scripture is sufficient for faith and practice, it also demonstrates this.
(Obsolescence of Tradition Based on Completed Canon)
You outline an invalid argument, but it's not the one I presented (possible lack of clarity on my part notwithstanding). The antecedent is not "If Scripture is incomplete, " but "If and only if Scripture is incomplete." The rules about denying antecedents or affirming consequents do not apply in such a case.
There is no false dilemma. If Scripture is sufficient to faith and practice, then whatever it doesn't address does not fall under the category of authoritative extra-Biblical Church Tradition.
Paul's apostleship was attested to in the performance of miracles, his faithfulness to the Gospel and the OT, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Arguably, these may be categorized as holy Tradition, but their function at the time does nothing to demonstrate the fuller tradition that you wish to advocate for today.