Much time and ink (or pixel) is expended on the relationship between the Scriptures and Tradition. The common misunderstanding, on both sides of the fence, is that these are two separate things. I propose that, in fact, they are not. Rather, they are one in the same.
By that, I do not mean that Tradition is nothing more than the words found in the Bible. Nor do I mean that the words in the Bible are simply a starting point for Tradition. Rather, to say that Scripture and Tradition are of a piece means that they cannot be thought of separately; nor can they be torn apart. Rather, they are (if I may) of the same essence; i.e., consubstantial.
Before submerging into deeper waters, let me borrow a working definition of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. The late Prof Dr George Florovsky (as quoted by Prof Dr John Behr) says that "Tradition is, as Florovsky put it commenting on Irenaeus, Scripture rightly understood." Or, as Behr himself says, "tradition is essentially the right interpretation of Scripture." With their adherance to a quia subscription to the 1580 Book of Concord, Evangelical-Lutherans hold to this same definition. For them, the Book of Concord is what all others call Tradition; yet it is not separate from the Scriptures but, as one theologian once put it, the lens through which we read the Scriptures.
Now, into deeper waters. To help clarify the confusion of Scripture and Tradition as two separate things, let me suggest that the relationship between Scripture and Tradition is no different than the relationship between the Second and Third Persons of the Holy Blessed Trinity. The Second Person is forthrightly called "the Word of God which became flesh." (Jn 1.14) And the Third Person is the Breath of God handed down (or, if I may, "traditioned") to the Apostles so that they might rightly know and interpret the Word which is Jesus. (Notice: Jesus Himself says that He gives the Spirit to bring to [right] remembrance all that He said; that the Spirit will teach the things to come; and that the Spirit is theTruth's Spirit.)
What I'm arguing for, then, is this: like Jesus and the Spirit, Scripture and Tradition are consubstantial. Yet, also like Jesus and the Spirit, they have separate "hypostasis" since they can be distinguished. Yet distinguished does not mean separated. And neither does it mean "acting apart" or "acting in opposition." So like Jesus and the Spirit, Scripture and Tradition cannot be at odds with each other. They must work in concert. When they don't then either Tradition is not Tradition; or Scripture is not being rightly read.
There is, of course, much more than can and should be said about this challenging topic. But for now, I simply propose this consubstantial understanding or relationship between Scripture and Tradition.