“What separates Protestants from Catholics is the Protestant notion that Scripture and Holy Tradition are antithetical; that for one to be accepted the other must be rejected.”
That really is a misstatement of the problem. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all facts relevant to the Christian faith. See John 21:25. And it does not at all dislodge the Church’s authority to teach doctrine. See 1 Timothy 3:15. Else why would the Holy Spirit give the gift of teaching to living teachers? See 1 Corinthians 12:28.
Instead, it is a claim that the Bible, and only the Bible, is sufficient to serve as the rule of faith for all who are in Christ. Put another way, while there may be much useful information in the world, only Scripture may state the binding requirements of Christian belief.
Implicit in the foregoing definition is that all claims to bind the Christian conscience must be tested against Scripture, as the Bereans were commended for doing. See Acts 17:11. Those where there is no conflict are admitted as valuable. Those that are in conflict must give quarter to Scripture. It is our supreme court.
Therefore, NL’s argument that Sola Scriptura automatically implies rejection of oral traditions is a false dichotomy. No tradition is to be rejected out of hand. But as NL pointed out, in the early church there was great concern for the possibility of forgers assuming apostolic authority. This was happening even during the writing of the New Testament corpus.
But Paul was equally concerned with false oral tradition entering the Church’s stream of thought:
2 Thess 2:1-2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
Note Paul covers all three possible vectors of infection with false teaching, the human spirit, a forged letter AND misleading oral tradition. What was his proposed antidote? He writes them a new letter confirming to them what they heard from him in person. He took out the middle man and routed them to direct apostolic authority in written form (enSCRIPTURated).
Therefore, it would seem that any argument for an infallible oral tradition as a viable alternative to written apostolic teaching should have been raised by Paul here. The false oral tradition he was refuting claimed apostolic authority, so mere claims of apostolic authority are not enough. Yet all Paul does is direct them to remember what he originally taught them, and see that it agrees with what he is telling them now, in written form.
It is therefore by agreement of the testimony of the teacher with the written record of apostolic teaching that we know the teaching is true.
To understand what we mean then by this idea of sufficiency as a rule of faith, let’s go back to a passage each side in this debate knows very well:
2Ti 3:16-17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
You know the drill, so I’ll get right to the point. Whatever Scripture is, it has certain attributes. It has the highest possible authority because it is inspired by God (theopneustos, God speaking). It provides true doctrine, rebuttal to error, directions for living, and is given to a singular purpose, that a believer may have everything they need to please God. (“complete,” then again as “thoroughly equipped”).
To put it in the negative, if Scripture, whatever it is, is NOT sufficient to the task of fully equipping the Christian to be Christian, then God has failed in his stated purpose in giving Scripture, and that of course can never be.
Therefore, this passage, while it does not explicitly define the canon of Scripture, does explain the self-contained nature of Scripture as the only necessary and preeminently authoritative rule of Christian faith. As that is what is meant by Sola Scriptura, then the Scriptures do indeed teach Sola Scriptura, assuming of course Paul’s writings to be Scripture, which I do not think is being contested here by either side.
Profitable (or useful) does most definitely not mean 'entirely sufficient.' If this is your proof text for sola scriptura, then it fails its own requirement and is self-negating.