Taking NBF to the woodshed. . .

Since you fail to take this elsewhere yourself, I'm taking your issues to task here.  Your words and citations are in italics.

As far as practices not in the Bible, the practice of "Going by the Bible Alone" is found nowhere in the Bible, is *condemned* by the Bible, and was invented just a few centuries ago.

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you

This is apostolic tradition, which is not contended with.  The hidden bait and switch comes when we examine who qualifies to be an apostle, and therefore qualify which traditions to approve. 

These traditions must also be specified and separated from extrabiblical traditions that started later on in history.  Any new tradition must fairly be compared to apostolic doctrine.  Tradition is by its very nature finite, and must have a doctrinal foundation.  Therefore, tradition does not precede or take authority over doctrine.

2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

These two verses must be looked at chronologically.  The fair question would naturally be which "traditions" specifically?

Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture

Therefore, it must be tested according to the "tradition" encouraged by John himself in 1 John 4:1.

Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won't

Love your use of filler here.  I would suspect your use of "word" in this sense includes additional revelation apart from holy scripture.

Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels

So what?  Paul's apostleship is not in question, is it?  This obviously does not give everyone license to attribute extrabiblical sayings to Jesus. 

2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth

2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men 

See above.  Paul's apostleship is not in question.

2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation

See verse 21 on this.  So the conclusion is once again, the traditional test of a prophet and an apostle must be followed first.  Then the confirmation of that prophet can be trusted to private interpretation afterward. . .if read carefully of course.

2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret

Is this one of those "It's too complicated" arguments?  Furthermore, that verse is being deliberately parsed!  The entire verse 16 reads: "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
 

1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth

More unnecessary padding.  The church is indeed the pillar and foundation of the truth.  But how do we know that our church today is the same as Paul and Timothy?  For one thing, if the church isn't Augustinian (for lack of a better label) according to the core doctrines of salvation, then that's a pretty good clue you have a church led by a false teacher.  This was warned against in scripture also.

Mt 18:17 - tell it to the Church; if he refuses to listen even to the church treat him as a heathen and a publican (he doesn't get to start his own church).

And he doesn't get executed for it either.  Well, church mistakes happen, no?  This is keeping in mind of course that the individual refusing is actually refusing true doctrine (Mk 7:7, Acts 2:42, Rom 16:17, Eph 4:14).  Regardless, Christ's kingdom is not of this earth and He said He alone will build His church.  

Here are 21 reasons to reject the Protestant-era doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

Hitting us with a paste and run, eh?  Let's look at that link more closely. . .

The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as "Tradition." The teaching authority or "Magisterium" of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith

Note the misleading doublespeak.  Here, tradition is continually added to post-canon, and then placed on the same authoritative level as scripture itself.  Then that authority is placed on one extrabiblical magisterium headed by a pope with a historically sketchy authority of his own (ask a Tridentine Catholic sometime).  Additionally, all of this fails to address "Ex Cathedra" revelation or traditions that change over time, such as the extrabiblical doctrine of Limbo.  So read the fine print.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant "Reformation."

Who's teachings were Augustinian in origin, by the way.  But that's conveniently omitted.  The point is that Luther didn't make up his own material.  That part is always assumed by the RCC apologist.  The reformation was an unearthing of the true mother church that was buried under extrabiblical tradition and Pelagian heresey dating back to Augustine. 

 (1) In response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.

If the authority endorsed and defended the abuse, then you must obey God rather than men, correct?  Since you pulled the cut and paste, it's only fair for me to refute with the same maneuver: 

http://www.christiantruth.com/bahnsen.html

http://www.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html (addressing an error in Catholic Answers)

http://www.aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html (On how the mere catchphrase "sola scriptura" is misrepresented)

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_sola_sproul.html  (Rather to say, "You only think you know Luther and your history is off.")

http://members.aol.com/twarren19/sola.html (My favorite.  I love the double-standard that is revealed to here.)

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/07/a_refutation_of_roman_catholic.php (one I haven't read yet, but you know I will.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3997c951725a.htm (gets really good at 8/14/2000 at about 5:08)   So the debate is far from over.

The 21 reasons article is a lengthy; forced shift from the stance of apostolic tradition to "apostolic" tradition.  Therefore, one must be tested against another by what?  Scripture alone.  And in the end, tradition becomes a necessary outcome of The Word.  One comes before the other.  Thus, one takes precedence over the other.

When you're prepared to take it point-by-point NBF, I'll be here.

-PJ