You may keep saying that and refusing to understand, but you're still wrong.
"Holy Tradition" is not tradition.
It's a name given to a method by which the various Catholic churches determine and define doctrine. You are trying to say that if Protestants give assent to Biblical teaching--and have done so consistently for a long time--they are doing so in the same way as Catholics create doctrine from an alleged "consensus of historic opinion."
We don't do that. The two methods are different. How you could call "We don't do that (and never have)" disingenuous seems to me to be, well, disingenuous.
No - he is saying that the idea that Christians should simply assent to Scripture to get correct teachings is Tradition.
How does any person who believes that is how Christians know truth come to believe that? It isn't in the Bible itself, but if it were, it wouldn't be helpful unless you like circular arguments. It isn't thundered out by cavernous disembodied voices at prayer meetings. It is the decision and consensus of the community, and it typically defines those communities.
As a Tradition it is generated in two ways: the claim that this was of assenting to the Bible is the authentic practice of the early Church (Tradition,) and by the consensus of the community doing the teaching in the present (also Tradition, because in the Church Tradition extends over time.)
When those two things don't match up, the past and present Tradition, at least in the more fundamental sense, you get a break in Tradition, and often two separate communities, which is why we sometimes refer to communities as traditions
And in practice it is actually much more complex than that. Firstly because how we decide what Biblical teaching is isn't obvious and needs to be defined by the community. And secondly, once you have done so, you get a variety of interpretations of what the Bible actually teaches, and then that interpretation itself becomes part of the communities Tradition of Biblical understanding.
So you could have a Lutheran whose Tradition says he must interpret Scripture for truth, that he is meant to go about that in very particular ways, and then it makes particular interpretations based on what comes out of that method. Someone who on the other hand has a sort of simple tradition of interpretation based on literalism and fundamentalism will have very different teachings in his group.
This is why the Protestant reformers all claimed to be more closely adhering to the practice of the early Church, and that the Roman practices were corruptions. Their method they say as essentially preserving or reviving (perhaps with developments to keep it from straying again) the original Tradition which the Roman Church had strayed from. In claiming their practices were in line with the authentic primitive Church, they were making an argument from Tradition.