Now that's out of the way:
Would you consider, after reading 2 Timothy, that succession includes doctrinal teaching? If so, then how can the apostolic writings not be included in that succession?
Would you consider, after reading 2 Timothy, that succession includes doctrinal teaching? If so, then how can the apostolic writings not be included in that succession?
I never said apostolic writings were excluded, I said apostolic succession is part of Tradition, which is inseparable from apostolic writings (scriptures) which is inseparable from the Magisterium (teaching authority).
What you've quoted I think is inaccurate. To conclude that the Nicean Creed does not include Scripture is to ignore what should be rather self evident - most of the words are scriptural. The use of only begotten (monogenes), God being Maker of Heaven and Earth, of things seen and unseen, by whom all things were made, etc. The use of of homoousios, while not from the Bible, is a scriptural concept, and it scarcely would have been included if the fathers had not concluded it was taught in Scripture by concept if not by word. Kelly makes this exact point from Irenaeus.
Read more: http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/other-religions/protestanism/baptists-at-nicea-by-fr-hugh-barbour-o-praem/
I also doubt the assertion that the Arians rejected the Nicean understanding on the basis purely that it was a Greek philosophical term. The main reason they didn't like the term was theological, but they also used the argument that because the Gnostics, in particular Paul of Samosata, had used the term, it should be rejected. Of course, this is a pretty specious argument in the first place (what then should we make of the use of Logos in John?!)
But in any case, that doesn't sustain the real point you're making, that somehow Nicea is proof of a non sola scriptura position.
Everywhere in his writings, St. Athanasius takes the Church's faith as the rule whereby the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted. This rule of ecclesiastical faith (Greek: ho skopos tes ekklesiatikes pisteos) he adopts as a canon for rightly establishing the sense of the sacred text. The Arian heretics, on the other hand, use their private opinion (Greek: ho idios nous) as their rule or canon of interpretation. The evidence is glaring. You simply cannot admit that the rule of ecclesiastical faith TOGETHER with Scriptures, was used to refute Arius. It's documented in the canons of Nicae.
Patently, it is (at least as the Reformers understood it, not as people either misunderstand or, in the case of many hyper-Proestants, misapply it)
The Council of Nicea dealt with many of the same canonical issues in 325 that are dealt with in the Church's current canon law, both Eastern and Western. Its decrees concern the qualifications, precedence and jurisdiction of bishops and priests (canons 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19), the proper role of deacons at the celebration of the Eucharist (canon 18), measures to ensure the validity of the ordination of bishops (canon 4), uniformity in the celebration of the Church's Eucharistic Liturgy (canon 20), the preservation of the celibacy of the clergy (canon 3) and the treatment of penitents and their reconciliation (canons 11, 12, 13, 14). It's worth quoting a few of these canons that show the Council's Catholic character quite unambiguously.
So why does every classical Protestant confession of faith mention Nicae???
Peter was not always infallible. To say he was requires you to basically invoke a no true scotsman argument to say things like "when Peter led people astray by not eating with Gentiles, he wasn't teaching."
At that point, it becomes pointless to talk about someone being infallible - instead, one can only speak about what is taught as being infallible (indeed, this is the position of Rome in regards to papal infallibility). My position is simply that the teaching of the apostles which is infallible is that which flows from the Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit. It's telling to me, for instance, that Paul on at least one occasion is quick to separate what is his teaching, and what is the Lord's teaching.
Does he expect tradition to have different content to the Scriptures? Did he expect there were things that the apostles did not teach that were important doctrinal points that the church needed to know? Yes or no?
"...Those books which are apostolic belong in the canon of scripture. If a book had been handed down by the apostles as scripture (like the books of the Old Testament) of if it was written by one of the apostles or their associates (like the books of the New Testament), it belonged in the Bible. Apostolicity was thus the test for canonicity.But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book's claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible.But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition.
First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand. This is something Evangelical scholars admit.
Protestant scripture scholar F. F. Bruce writes that,
"[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy.... This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus.... When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate... the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ? Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him...?" (The Canon of Scripture, 260).
Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle -- not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.
The fact that this was also used by the early Church to establish apostolicity is also something admitted by Protestant scholars. F. F. Bruce writes:
"It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospsels are anonymous, whereas the 'Gospels' which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels.... The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition" (ibid., 257).
Eventually, the New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled.