How do Protestants make claims to follow scripture and ignore the traditions of the ancient church which produced the scriptures?

A recent highly upvoted answer on a different question sparked this question to me. It is at the bottom. Searching found this similar but different question I will quote the parts that sparked the question here. I as always will leave the author unnamed. (I'm not here to put anyone on "blast" so to speak) > ...we don’t blindly accept what men claim. We follow Acts 17:11 where the Bereans were commended because “they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” > >**If it wasn’t done during the first century when Christ Jesus established his church** – not a building, not an organisation but the body of believers – **then we reject it.** We follow Scripture. > >That, in a nutshell, is how Protestants deal with the claims of men who lived after the death of Jesus and the apostles. If their teachings and claims are found in Scripture, then we accept that as our authority. **What we reject is the teachings and traditions of men who have added to the word of God.** I assume "add" would also include "remove or change". To understand the spirit of the words written here. Edit: It has come to my attention that the above is likely to be incorrect with regards to how protestants do things. This makes the question based on a misunderstanding I thought it was accurate. Knowing this resolves the issue of the main question, and leaves the "bonus questions" remaining. --- Immediately I find myself wondering how the logic can possibly work here. Because we have several problems that are immediately apparent. (As noted here in another question, but I'm not focused on Sola Scriptura like that question is) Facts. 1. The Scriptures were starting to be canonized maybe as early as 382AD (Rome) or 393 (Hippo). This does not mean the early church had no scriptures, but there was much that was "repeated" and also "not divinely inspired" (Protogospels, multiple letters, gnostic false scriptures... etc) This process was formally completed in the 6th Ecumenical Council Canon 2 **in 692AD** 2. Who decided which texts were "divinely inspired" and "good for worship"? The Church fathers did *after the 1st century*. > Edit: I just remembered the local councils at Carthage (255 AD). So the process started even earlier in some formal sense. --- Claims from above combined with facts. 1. Protestants only accept things within Scripture. 2. Protestants reject things after the 1st century. (So they do accept some "direct contact tradition") 3. The New Testament and Bible was starting to be canonized from multiple texts in multiple councils starting in 382AD. And at this point the protestants somehow accept the Biblical Canon. Though they seem to have a problem with the original canon list. Even Luther wished parts of the Bible didn't exist (see here... ) --- #### How do protestants, accept* the given tradition of the Bible, despite it being canonized by the traditions of men after the 1st century? - Bonus question: How do they reconcile changing the Bible from the original canon of 692AD? - Bonus question: How is this not cherry picking which tradition you like? (You like scripture, but dislike XYZ)