No, I don't think you get it at all.
The writings were indeed divinely inspired (I never said otherwise). However, "divinely inspired writings" doesn't automatically equal "sola Scriptura". Again, that would be an anachronistic assumption (if you are indeed making that assumption--I don't want to presume to know what you assume ). The bible is itself silent about a forthcoming NT canon, and historically the concept of the NT canon took time to develop, and it took close to 400 years for the NT canon to be universally recognized. Those are just simple facts.
But the written Bible, whether a "canon" was mentioned in it or not, is still a SOLID transmission of what they taught, not "oral teachings", which no one can prove came from the apostles, except your argument "well, they consistently interpreted Scriptures on the key doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation and find a consistency across time and space. Now that consensus may not agree with one's perception of what the apostolic witness is based on ones modern day interpretations of Scripture, but that consensus regarding those key doctrines is still there historically". So then, just from that alone, plus their "seniority" in time, we are supposed to trust everything else they taught on liturgies, church organization and other teachings, even if we find no trace of it in the text. Sorry, but that is a fallacy. Getting a few things right doesn't mean you have everything right.
Once again, any oral teaching would be rendered unnecessary once the writings were widespread (whether a "canon" was mentioned by them or not). Yes, they may have mentioned "word or epistle", but the "word" part was
person to person. I don't see how you figure that was to co-exist side by side with writing forever. You speak to one person; if you want the message to last, you write it down. Because you spoke it to one person doesn;t mean you expect people generations later to still receive the message both ways, (with different things being transmitted both ways).
Ultimately, yes, and that authority is Christ. But Christ also delegated His authority to MEN, namely the apostles, and they founded a Church which the Apostle Paul called "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
No it's not that straighforward. It's actually a false dichotomy. Scriptures were written by fallible man, yet they were also inspired by God and are infallible. Likewise, the Church is made up of fallible men founded upon fallible apostles, yet the Holy Spirit guides her into all truth. Scriptures were written by the Apostles of the Church to members of the Church, and the canon was determined and defined by the church. It's that simple, really.
I should have added more on this before, but still, the later leaders are still not the same as the original apostles. The original apostles are those who saw the risen Christ (including Paul, later on). There were a set number of 12, and when one died, they replaced him. Yet after this first generation, the 12 was no longer maintained. If God was passing down apostolic authority like that, then He could have divinely kept the office of the 12 going. But it was allowed to cease. Thats shows that the later leaders were not intended to be placed in the same category with the same authority as the original apostles. The original disciples are the one exception to "fallible men" being trustworthy. Everyone after that is to be judged by the apostles' teachings preserved to us through written text (the only solid guide we have), not through their own authority assumed to have passed it down orally prefectly.
They wrote for various reasons: to give a narrative of the events--particularly the ministry, passion, and resurrection--and teachings of the life of Christ; to correct errors in already established churches; to take the opportunity to teach more (or remind of previously taught) doctrine; to exhort individuals and churches to continue in the faith already delivered; to give a narrative account of the first several years of the church; to deliver God's "revelation" to seven churches in Asia; etc.
Still, why didn't they just do that orally, since that is really the better way, with God making sure everyone gets it right?
There were-and still are--heretics because some folks decide to reject the Apostolic tradition, whether delivered "by word or epistle".
If GOd made sure the fathers got it right, supernaturally, then why didn;t he make sure these other people did too?
Actually I'm not applying them to any "corporate organizational state government"; I'm applying them to the visible apostolic catholic Church, which began at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit poured out on the Apostles and other disciples and which continues to this day.
And since the fourth century, a coprorate organizational state government is exactly what it has been. Even in the century before that, it had become what one person called a "microcosm of the empire" that impressed Constantine. The original Church was a
fellowship, with its simple shepherds and overseers, which didn't even have buildings and state sponsorship and all that stuff. The offices now became big power bases, and it soon became heavily political and state sponsored. To follow these "apostolic traditions" means to align onesself with this organization and its now, kingly leaders. That is the problem with just closing your eyes and saying "I'm just going to follow this group because it has the seniority".
This is complete and utter nonsense.
