The author of the above linked article, William Webster, makes some pretty interesting claims. I was almost prepared to believe him until he quoted the following:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition".
It seems ironic that the article attempts to prove sola scriptura *on the basis of Tradition. What the article appears to amount to, in my opinion, is more proof-texting of the Fathers themselves, treating *them *as Scripture to support sola scriptura *and an understanding of it. It just goes to show that patristics is a **very **large category and it can be difficult to judge their individual degree of importance when taken outside of Tradition that they participated in.