Why the Bible Doesn't Teach There Will Be a Millennial Kingdom, Part I

I used to love watching the Wizard of Oz every year that it would come on TV. We didn't have cable so it was one of the few movies for kids I got to see in my own home every year. Dorothy landed in Oz but needed to get home and all she had to do was follow the yellow brick road and it would lead her to the Emerald City. When she finally got there, I remember how richly green the city looked, and of course, everyone was wearing green. In the original story, however, the Emerald City isn't actually emerald at all. The Wizard, a con man, had simply tricked the city into wearing glasses with green lenses that made the city and everything in it look like it was green. The city was just a regular city but try arguing that with one of its patriotic citizens who might curse you for saying otherwise. 

Premill? Postmill? Amill? These debates have dominated biblical hermeneutics for the past few centuries. Someone thinks the Bible says something about these and then proceeds to shove it down the throat of every unsuspecting text they come across. One text in Revelation 20 speaks of a millennium but does it tell us that there will actually be one? I'm going to argue now that the answer to the question is, No. 

Now, to caveat, I am not saying that there will not be one or that the Bible tells us that there will not be one. Hear me correctly. I am saying that the Bible does not tell us that there will be one. There may be unicorns in the new world, and the Bible does not say there will not be, but it doesn't say there will be either. So if you are a hardcore adherent, a citizen of the Emerald City who sees the millennium where there isn't one, what I am going to do now is to show you a hole in the matrix that you can look through to see the Bible as it is and not what those who have conned themselves and others into believing it says through what they think they read in the Bible but didn't.

Let's start by saying that if the only text that teaches about a millennium is literally telling us that there is one then both Postmill and Amill are false. Only Premill is supported by Revelation 20 if it is John's purpose to tell us about actual reality and not merely a possible reality. 

Why do I say that? Well, let's look at the text for a moment.

    Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. and he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were completed (after these things he must be released for a short time). Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. Then they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. Then the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

We, who don't have emerald glasses on, can see here that the resurrection of the body must take place before the millennium, so Postmills and Amills are out. If the resurrection of the body must take place first, and this has not happened nor will happen before Christ returns, then any millennial view that posits a pre-resurrection millennium is not supported by the only text that talks about a millennium.

Now, you may say what every Postmill or Amill says, "Yeah, but I see resurrection here as regeneration and so its just the regeneration of Christians that is necessary to take place first, and since that has happened, Amill and Postmill can be supported by this text." 

To which I say, "Thanks, Scarecrow, never thought about that one before." But actually, the text doesn't allow it. Hear me. THE TEXT DOES NOT ALLOW IT! Not me and my theology and preconceived notions. Not my traditions or personal, subjective longings for a particular idea to be true. THE TEXT DOES NOT ALLOW IT!

Why do I say that? Because key elements are being ignored by those trying to make that argument. It truly is a lesson in horrible hermeneutics. Someone who doesn't understand how to exegete will go through all of these texts that refer to regeneration as a type of resurrection or coming to life from other passages in the Bible, i.e., from other contexts with foreign referents, and then shove that meaning into this text and the phrase "they came to life." 

So what does the text mean in context? Let's read it and find out.

Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. 

When does regeneration take place in a believer's life? Before or after he receives Christ, lives for Him and dies for Him? Obviously before. When would this regeneration happen here is "coming to life" meant regeneration? After they became Christians and testified of Jesus and obeyed the Word of God and refused therefore to bow down and worship the beast (whether the Roman Emperor it refers to or the system of the world doesn't matter here). So after they testified of Jesus, after they obeyed the Word of God, and after they refused to worship a false Christ, they became spiritually dead and were regenerated?

And that's another problem. They became spiritually dead after they received Jesus, testified of Him by doing so, obeyed the Word of God, stood in perseverance for their faith under the pressure of the beast (who was physically killing Christians in the rest of the book btw)? And what a weird way describing one becoming spiritually dead, "they who had been beheaded."

"Oh, well, I don't believe it's chronological," you might say. To which I would say, "The text makes it clear that it is by putting it in logical and temporal order. For instance, why were they "brought to life"? Because they previously had been beheaded? Why were they beheaded? Because what preceded the beheading was their not worshiping the beast, obeying the Word of God, and testifying of Jesus. We might then add, Why were they doing all of that? To which we would answer, Because they were already regenerated. So the one logically and temporally follows the other.

But not only that, Revelation has cycles that recapitulate the time from John to the ending of the devil's world and the beginning of Christ's world taking over all things. There is a progression from John's present to the end and this part of this final cycle is at the end, not in John's present. All rule and authority has been abolished in this scenario in Chapter 19, the beast/emperor and his kings, the false prophet, and the devil have all been toppled, which is where Christ begins to reign completely over all things with no opposition. In this cycle alone, John suggests a final push by the devil to take back his kingdom from Christ that fails so completely that the battle isn't even described. It begins and then immediately we are brought to the final judgment with the obvious losers being thrown into the lake of fire.

So both in the immediate context and in the overall context, this is meant to be temporal and a logical sequence of events where one thing must precede the other in order to happen, i.e., these saints must become Christians who testify of Christ and obey the Word of God, this causes them to be beheaded/killed, and this causes Christ to bring them to life.

I mean, they are even paralleled with the souls in Revelation 6, which speaks of the same group in extremely similar language:

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also. 

Not only is the fifth seal here late in the cycle, although not as late as Revelation 20 is in its cycle, showing the progression of the temporal sequence of events within each cycle, but notice that the same language is used of these people who are told to wait for God to do what He does in Revelation 19-20 because all Christians have to join them first in death. And they have died. They are crying out to God to take vengeance upon those who have shed their "blood," which is a synecdoche for "murder." They are told to wait until the rest of their brethren "who were to be killed even as they had been." So these "souls" as John calls them are physically dead.

And why are they dead here in the cycle of Revelation 6? They "had been slain because of the Word of God and because of the testimony which they had maintained." Notice the parallel language: "Souls" // souls, "slain" // "beheaded" in Rev 20, "because of the Word of God" // "because of the Word of God," "their testimony" // "the testimony of Jesus." 

I don't know about you, but I'm with the Sixth Sense kid, I see dead people. And they're not spiritually dead. They're physically dead but in the presence of God, i.e., spiritually alive and well, i.e., having been brought to life spiritually long before they died since it was the entire reason that they were murdered in the first place.

What this means is that the "souls" in Revelation 20 are souls. The word "beheaded" refers to their being executed for their faith. That means that that the making of them alive is from the only death they are suffering from at the time of their being made alive, i.e., physical death, i.e., it's the physical resurrection from the dead to which Revelation 20 is referring. And you know what that means? The physical resurrection must take place first before the millennium in this passage, again, the only passage that actually speaks of a millennium, not only within the rest of the Bible but in the book itself. In Amill, we're in the millennium now. Is that supported by the only text speaking about a millennium? Nope. In Postmill, we or people before Christ's return and the physical resurrection will enter the millennium. Is that supported by this text? Nope. Sing it with me, "So goodbye yellow brick road."

Now before you feel all lost like someone just whipped you out of your home in a tornado so that you no longer feel like you're in Kansas anymore, let me suggest that the visceral reaction you might be having to what I've just said might be because you made something the Bible isn't even teaching into an entire hermeneutic that we now see you didn't actually get from the Bible. 

Likewise, lest Premills rejoice in their victory, let me point out that John gives multiple scenarios that might happen in the end throughout the Book of Revelation and there is nothing to indicate that whatever one he ends with is the one that is going to happen. Revelation 6-7 ends with nothing about a millennial kingdom after Christ takes His victory. Likewise, there is no millennial kingdom when He takes the world from the devil in Revelation 8-11. Only in the final cycle of 12-22 does one find the millennial kingdom idea as one of three possible endings John gives the devil's world in the book. This tells us that it is not his purpose to describe the details of the end to us but rather use possible ends to say that no matter how the devil's world ends, it will end. The devil and those who follow him will lose. Christ and those who follow Him will have the victory and inherit the world to come.

This means that a millennial idea should not dominate your hermeneutic. No hermeneutic that isn't clearly and sufficiently supported by exegesis should be your hermeneutic, not for interpreting the Bible and not for interpreting your life. It is adding and taking away from this book. It adds concepts that are not taught by it and it takes away the true message that has nothing to do with these concepts. What we really need is to understand John's message as our entire hermeneutic of the Bible because that is actually what is taught here. Jesus wins. So if you're tired, if you're outcast, if you're hungry, if you're thirsty, if you're killed, you can endure it because Jesus and those who have the testimony of receiving Him and obey the Word of God win. So we acquire wisdom to rule the world to come now. We acquire the love that will fill that world now. We become like the Lord who will rule that world now. 

Revelation isn't the witch's crystal ball that shows us specific details of events. It's our ruby slippers that get us home. So take off your green-glazed glasses, realize where you are, and start tapping those shoes instead. I promise you. Far better than an uninspired speculative theology, the real message of the book will get you home.

Hyper-Antignosticism Is as Bad as Any Other Hyper

 Like all heresies, hyper-antignosticism, or over-realized eschatology, emerges from an attempt to counter another heresy, in this case gnosticism. Gnosticism, however, like any heresy is not completely wrong or it wouldn't be convincing. Hyper-antignosticism, by attempting to correct all of what gnosticism teaches and emphasizes, ends up denying the truths found within it along with the errors and therefore becomes a heresy itself. 

For instance, in the attempt to argue against anything that even resembles the gnostic tendency to deny material good, one creates an overemphasis on the material in such a way as to now oppose the truths of the New Testament and deny the nature of the new covenant before the coming of our Lord. 

One is now judged, not for the content of his character, but for the wellness and order of his physical life. The Apostle Paul would have been viewed correctly by the Corinthians then as one who is lesser than they are in many ways (prestige, health, wealth, etc.). Physically speaking, his life was a mess. The type of materialism created by hyper-antignosticism could not tolerate such a life.

But Scripture is clear that in the time of the "already, not yet" we are to "set our minds on the things above and not on the things below." Notice, it does not say "set your minds on the things above and the things below," but the emphasis is on the things above rather than the things below. Christ tells us that we should not store up our riches here but rather to "store up" our "treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy." Peter tells us that our inheritance is not something we receive now but rather is stored up in heaven for us and that our salvation is ready to be revealed but has not yet been fully received. He says this in light of the suffering and oppression that the Christians who he is addressing are experiencing in the world. He does not argue that their release will be a future period before Christ returns but rather when He returns. Paul says that if our earthly tent (a temporal structure) is torn down we have a heavenly one that is eternal in the future, one already conceived in heaven (this, of course, in Pauline thought is talking about the natures of the mortal body before it is clothed with immortality). Hence, Christians do not bind themselves to the world through the physical but rather learn to not love their lives even to the point of death, as all the saints are said to do in the Apocalypse of John. 

Hence, in the Book of Acts, Christians sell their lands, possessions, etc. in order to help the poor because they are looking toward the day when they must be granted entrance into the eternal dwellings. This does not mean that one does not plant his apple tree or work that none might have need or tend to the physical birth of children etc., but what is does mean is that His kingdom is not of this world nor does He seek to take it through his followers (or they would be fighting He declares to Pilate). Instead, He will return to wipe out all other rule and authority upon the earth and take what He has won through His obedience, and He will do this because He alone is the Savior and needs no help from His followers. They are not his means to overcoming the physical world. They function as His images in their words and character even while their bodies are given over to suffering and death. 

The difference between NT Christianity and Gnosticism, therefore, is not that one emphasizes the spiritual and one does not. The difference is that one emphasizes the spiritual now in view of the redemption of the physical to come and one emphasizes the spiritual in view of the annihilation of the physical to come. In other words, they both have different eschatologies because they both have different views of theology, cosmology and anthropology. 

In Christianity, the God of the Old Testament is the only God that exists and He is good. Therefore, whatever He makes is good and will be redeemed. In Gnosticism, however, there is more than one god and the god who makes the world is either evil or just incompetent, and therefore, makes either a deficient physical world or an evil one. Spirits come from the highest god, and since he is good, those spirits are good but now trapped in a physical world from which they must escape.

These are two different religions, not because one emphasizes spirituality over the physical world, but because their differing eschatologies and ethics are born from their differing theologies, christologies, cosmologies, and anthropologies. Hence, their emphases on spirituality, although looking similar, are miles apart. 

Hyper-antignosticism ignores this and ignorantly just chalks up all spiritual emphases as gnostic, flying straight into the heresy and apostasy of the type of materialism we see in the health and wealth cult of our day, which has its manifestations not only in the charismatic movement but even in more conservative evangelical and reformed congregations. Cults throughout history have done this many times before. Over-realized eschatology isn't new. In fact, I would argue that it is the basis of most cults, especially those, ironically, who have gnostic tendencies. It is easier to argue that Jesus wants to rule now through our efforts if we argue that he has returned already to rule the earth. Yet, we can't see him so it must be that its a spiritual reign. The belief in the spiritual reign of Jesus as opposed to the actual physical reign at his return has fueled numerous cults, a big one being that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Other cults just place a heavy emphasis on their times as the end times and so see themselves as the last generation through whom Christ will change the world in some way (Latter Day Saints come to mind). Cults, then, are largely created by over-realized eschatology, and this, again, is something hyper-antignosticism has in common with the cults, not something from which it distinguishes itself. 

As 2 Thessalonians would argue, the good hope is the future return of Christ. The bad hope, i.e., the false hope, is a hope in the present world that believes Christ is already transforming the physical world and its institutions. Such was the hope of the Roman Christians who saw their empire fall and given over to savages instead. Such was the hope of Christendom which fell the Muslims and later the secularists. Such was the hope of the Munster rebels right before their leaders were killed by an army that did not share their over-realized eschatological views.

But 2 Thessalonians also lets us understand that each hope, the good and the bad one, have fruit that tell Christians, who were told by Christ to judge false prophets by their fruit, which hope they are in. If the hope produces a judgmentalism of others based on their physical circumstances, looks, health, wealth, class, problems, etc. this evidences the bad hope that is Satanic. If the fruit is one of love and care for others in their physical problems, lack of health or wealth etc., this is the good hope, the one that looks to take care of Jesus through His people until He comes and rights the physical wrongs with the world. But if I must right the physical wrongs and so must you? Well, then, you better get with it or you will be considered lesser.

Hyper-antignosticism does not lead to love. It leads to lifting some up over others. It leads to judging character by what class, health, wealth, or position in which one finds himself. It leads to a life of the flesh, not the life of the Spirit, and so it is not Christian but a Christian heresy that leads to the ruin of its hearers.

Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking that they have already received the promises of Christ through physical things. He mocks them by saying that they have already become perfect without us. Yet, he says that those who are truly in Christ are waiting for their salvation, their deliverance into a new physical world where there is no more opposition to our God who is spirit sanctifying all physical things and immortalizing them by His Spirit. This has happened in our spirits but the physical remains to be perfected and only He who is perfect can come and do that for us. That is Christianity. That is the good hope. That is our hope. Hyper-antignosticism sets people up to expect things from God and other people that are not promised on this side of Christ's return and so by lying about God and other Christians, it fails to love God and neighbor. It is a true heresy of heresies, therefore, that must be rejected.

Goodbye, Fair Lady

The world is darker.

Her light gone out.

It is lesser. Less selfless, more selfish. Less loving, more hateful.

With less compassion, less reason, less good, the earth keeps turning toward its futility.

The one the world held back from bearing bore anyway,

She through whom God brought life from lifelessness traded her life for another.

Her goodness was a shield, her strength a sword. Fools dare oppose it.

But she is left and gone away.

Deadness creeps back in, the darkness grows and monsters return. 

Who will take up her lantern and scare them away? 

The wild weeds grow taller. Who will mend our cuts from the thorns? 

She enters joy but we grief. She enters painlessness but we pine. 

Blessed is she who enters her rest from sorrows but woe to us who remain upon the cursed ground.

Goodbye, Fair Lady. You greatly loved and were loved greatly. You will return and walk through the green grass and feel the wind on your face and hear the whispers of the trees again one day but we will weep until then.

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt 25:34-40)

"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." (Rev 14:13)

John Piper’s Critique of Instone-Brewer

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of-legitimate-divorce 

Robert Gagnon’s Critique of Instone-Brewer

http://www.robgagnon.net/DivorceOUPEntrySexuality.htm 

Why People Choose Incompetent Leaders

 https://youtu.be/Ix4nKNDKhTQ?si=zwwhvYUGV4WCrW1U

I think I would acknowledge the problem but give different reasons as to why people choose incompetent leaders. I think it’s because people choose who they like and they like those who make them feel most comfortable. Intellectual people make people uncomfortable and stir up a host of insecurities, and so they are the least liked among leaders. We often want to associate good leadership skills to those who make us feel comfortable and bad leadership skills to those who make us feel uncomfortable. Ironically, it would be the opposite, as a true leader causes discomfort in a person so that it becomes a catalyst for change. But that is not how most people choose their leaders which, ironically, means they choose leaders contrary to their often theoretical goals to change and become better. 

Evaluating the Council of Trent, Part I

 The decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63) are the pinnacle of the counterreformation launched by the traditional medieval church that wanted to both preserve what they saw as correct developments within the Christianity of the Middle Ages but to reform practices that were obviously corrupt. My purpose with this series is to go through the council and critique where I think the council erred. It may be assumed that those things I do not critique are things with which I either agree or that I find adiaphora (e.g., meeting on Thursdays for communion). 

The council opens up in its first sessions (Sessions 1-2, 1545-46) to both inaugurate the council, state its purpose for reform against heresy and improper conduct by its own members, and to make sure all members of the council are repentant and living out lives dedicated to the Lord through the church.

The Third Session held in 1546 is where the council describes what it is doing is setting forth a confession of faith that had not been set forth before. It declares, 

"Wherefore, that this its pious solicitude may begin and proceed by the grace of God, It ordains and decrees that, before all other things, a confession of faith is to be set forth; following herein the examples of the Fathers, who have been wont, in the most sacred coucils [sic], at the beginning of the Actions thereof, to oppose this shield against heresies; and with this alone, at times, have they drawn the unbelieving to the faith, overthrown heretics, and confirmed the faithful." 

Herein is an admission that anything in the confession is not something set down before. There is nothing wrong with this as I would agree that it is necessary to further combat any new heresy that comes along, but it does need to be noted that when a new heresy does not stem from an old one, one cannot establish their continuity with the early church merely be forming a new confession. The case must be made that the new teaching is, in fact, both new and a heresy if the confession should delcare it as such. Otherwise, the confession itself is an innovation. 

Hence, the council begins from the Nicene Creed as the foundation of orthodoxy and cites the creed as its foundation.

The Fourth Session (April 8, 1546) is really where the council begins to set down its confession, and it does so by beginning with the canon of Scripture, as well as stating its foundational authority as not being sola Scriptura.

"The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,–keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament–seeing that one God is the author of both –as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession."

So both the Scripture and tradition are equally received and venerated with an equal affection of piety and reverence. Trent claims that both the Scripture and tradition have come from the mouth of Christ or the apostles or the Holy Spirit and so both have God as their author. It further claims that it has preserved all of these equally through continuous succession. 

I'm going to assume that this means a continuous succession of popes, which historically seems unviable. Scripture was not preserved by popes (it was largely preserved by monks), doctrines which are viewed as heretical by the RCC have been taught by popes, and tradition has changed and added innovations over the years. Hence, the need to say that the Holy Spirit speaks things into tradition to explain these observations ends up as a hail-Mary that contradicts the idea of preservation by continuous succession. One can say that some things were preserved by continuous succession but obviously the idea that they came from Christ or the Apostles or the Holy Spirit is just a religious claim that has no verifiable backing. One must simply trust that the church has the same credence to its claims that the Bible does and exercise the same faith toward it that he or she does toward the Scripture. 

This is where I have a problem with Trent in the same way that I have a problem with cults and cult leaders, individuals claiming to be led by the Spirit, etc. There is no external verification that can take place. The Scripture claims to be from God and one must have faith that it is, but I would also argue that Scripture is not self-defeating in its claims. If it can be shown that the church did not preserve even the verifiable teachings of Christ and the apostles or that its religion is self-defeating or ultimately contradicts itself in some way then the claim can actually be shown to be false, but there is no way to show whether it is true as secret teachings cannot be verified and whether God has given new teachings to the church by the Holy Spirit is equally unverifiable even if they did not contradict the teachings found in the Scripture. This is because a claim that God said X can only be verified by something that one knows God said. The entire Christian church agrees that God said X in Scripture but whether He also said Additional Teaching Y secretly cannot be confirmed just because it may not contradict X. For instance, if the Trent claimed that we can affirm that God said unicorns exist just because it does not contradict anything the Bible teaches, we cannot confirm that God actually said unicorns exist because He did not say anything of the sort in the Bible. Hence, we are left to merely trusting the person or institution claiming that God spoke X by Christ, the apostles, or the Holy Spirit without any proof that He did. 

However, as said before, we are able to evaluate anything that Trent claims God said by the work in which we both agree God spoke. This means that the claim that any doctrine that contradicts Scripture is from God can be evaluated, and it must be evaluated by both parties by Scripture, not tradition since whether or not it is truly a tradition of God is the thing under dispute.

The counter to my claim might be laid by arguing that tradition sets the canon, and therefore, must be superior to it. I will argue in my next post why both the tradition contradicts the claim that it is uniform and passed on/preserved by succession and why it is self-defeating.