When you can prove that without appealing to the Scriptures, you'll have an argument with some merit. Until then, you're just begging the question and repeating self-reinforcing arguments.
The Scriptures themselves are only trustworthy in the sense that we trust the community they come from. Otherwise, how do you know that you have the "correct" Word of God? How do you KNOW that the Gnostic Scriptures are not REALLY from God? You know because you have been taught by the Church and the witness of others who vouch for it.
IOW, Scripture derives its authority from the Church since it is the Church which defines it. Yet curiously any questioning of where the Church's authority comes from invariably leads back to the words of Scripture. Circular reasoning.
Now, naturally we are to judge whether something is true or not. Apostolic Tradition and Scripture cannot contradict. But the virginity of Mary is NOT contradicted by Scriptures. It is just not related in Scriptures because it was not a pressing issue when Paul was writing to the various communities spread throughout the Mediterranean.
And why are we to believe the Church can provide such extra-biblical revelation? Because the Scriptures say so! And how do we know that's what the Scriptures say? Because the Church says so! And how are we to know the Church is not wrong? Because the Scriptures say so! And how do we know that's what the Scriptures say? Because the Church says so!
And on and on and on...
So what "ruler" did they use to judge whether the Gospel of Thomas was not from God? Apostolic Tradition. They were TAUGHT a particular way of reading the Scriptures and had already worshiped God in a particular way. Thus, when they came together to define what was Scriptures, they already had an existing paradigm that was taught by both oral and written manner.
WRONG. There was much more to it than that. Books which were in dispute were examined doctrinally in light of those which were not, in terms of authenticity, in terms of internal consistency, and many other criteria. They weren't simply chosen as Scripture because some people before them believed them as such. You're making a very historically ignorant and self-serving argument here, friend.
Oh. so you judge for yourself what is Scriptures. And when if someone comes along and disagrees with you? Which one is full of it and which one is full of the "Spirit"?
Oh, please. You do precisely the same thing when you choose to believe the Church's self-reinforcing claims about it's own authority in light of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture is a historically settled matter. I could certainly go through the same investigative process that the early church did in reaching their conclusions about the canon, and I have to a certain extent, but at the end of the day I choose not to put my faith in the Roman Catholic Church but rather in the Scriptures themselves.
Where exactly in this Scripture does Scripture make that claim? Protestants have invented this as if it is an axiom, but I have yet to find this written down. Thus, your logic is self-defeating. You PRESUME that this is who God reveals Himself - solely through a book. Yet, the Scriptures themselves tell us to hold onto the teachings given, BOTH ORALLY and WRITTEN. Why do you go against THAT teaching? Where does the Scripture abrogate that teaching? If anything, YOU are going AGAINST Scriptures by demanding everything must be written in the Bible before we believe something.
What I am arguing and what you are attempting to refute are two different things. I do not argue against any sort of oral teachings, and indeed I fully affirm "oral" teachings that have been passed down which are not explicitly stated in Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But such teachings are implicit in Scripture and testable by it, which is exactly the example given in Scripture of the Bereans. It doesn't say they compared what they were hearing with Scriptures and their oral traditions. Scripture presents itself as the authority.
Until you can give me one verse from the entire Bible that says we are to ignore all future apostolic teachings because they are in the already compiled bible, I will go along with you. Otherwise, you need to analyze the logic of your own position.
Speaking of analyzing the logic of your own position, you might want to examine the fact that you presume the existence of "future apostolic teachings" in making your argument for the acceptance of them.
If you're gonna engage in a battle of logic, make sure you're not firing blanks.
I don't need to approach the Bible as the Word of God. You are making that presumption. I, on the other hand, approach the Bible as just another book (at least I did before believing that the Church is the Church set up by Christ). With extra-biblical evidence, I had very good evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth when it discusses the life of Christ and the ensuing actions of the Church. I see the continuing evidence from the witnesses that followed. And thus, St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospel if it were not for the Catholic Church". No circular argument here, unlike your point of view. You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources. That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.
I do not argue against any sort of oral teachings, and indeed I fully affirm "oral" teachings that have been passed down which are not explicitly stated in Scripture, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But such teachings are implicit in Scripture and testable by it, which is exactly the example given in Scripture of the Bereans. It doesn't say they compared what they were hearing with Scriptures and their oral traditions. Scripture presents itself as the authority.
Sure. Go read St. Irenaeus, who castigated heretics who ALSO "proved from Scriptures" their idea of the demiurge and so forth. He said we can only know what the Scriptures REALLY mean by reading them within the Church. This makes sense - as thousands of Protestant denominations continue to prove the wisdom of Irenaeus.
As to the Bereans, tell me where they found in the Scriptures the practice of the Eucharist, something that they did every Sunday? What did Paul commend them for? Not for Bible reading - the Jewish Thessalonians were condemned and they had the same bible and read it all the time. They were commended because they were opened to Paul's INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. Without proper interpretation, the Bible leads one to destruction, as 2 Peter says.
Regards