Keep in mind that the Reformation term “sola scriptura” is OFTEN misunderstood, both by it’s Protestant defenders and it’s Roman Catholic attackers.
Luther & Calvin et al. never said the ONLY authority in an individual Christian’s life, or in the Church’s life as a body was scripture. There are plenty of other authorities—and tradition and and common sense are among them.
Sola sciptura to the Reformers though meant Scripture alone was the FINAL and INERRANT authority—checking and keeping under it tradition and the human mind. Scipture if you will is the top dog in a hierarchy...and all lower authorities, while having real authority over churches, families and individuals, still must be submissive to scripture, God’s very word on things.
The baptism of infants for example is a tradition never mentioned explicitly in scripture. However, it is not banned in scripture either....and a reasonable scripturally based theology can be understood to defend it (as analogous to circumcision, under the New Testament economy). Hence we can have an extra-biblical tradition, still under the authority of biblical theology.
More radical protestants though took Sola Scriptura to mean SOLO Sciptura—that traditions, practices and reasoning not explicitly found in scripture are totally verbotten and unacceptable. This is one reason Baptist theology came about....through a radicalization of the sola scriptura principle.
This more radical SOLO Scriptura idea, not advocated by Luther or Calvin, is often what today in America especially, is defended or attacked in debates over the bible.
Unfortunately, there is no middle position between individualism on the one hand, and on the other hand the Magisterium having the authority to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Any attempt to make a book be the highest (of "final) authority reduces to individualism, because books must be interpreted, and therefore cannot (by their very nature as books) be final.
-A8