He used the text to argue for Biblical Inerrancy and the abolition of tradition. He did a pretty good job even if I disagree with the conclusion. That conclusion being the promotion of a Sola Scriptura with major 'roid rage.
As you may know from some of my book reviews, I have been reading a lot about the role of tradition in Church history. It is clear from even a cursory glance that church tradition and reverence for scripture go hand in hand. One would not exist without the other, and the other is just as dependent on the first.
Case in point, how did we get the current construction of the cannon of scripture? Church counsels confirmed the passages that were already accepted within the community of believers. The tradition (that word means what is passed on, that's all) of the universal Church became official.
Note that this tradition was not empty or vain or unquestioned. The authority of the scriptures was passed down (tradition) from the Apostles, to the disciples they made, to the next generation, etc. We have Paul talking about this process in his letters, Luke mentioning it in his gospel and Mark penning a gospel for a disciple who was actually an eye-witness.
As I was sitting, listening to his message it dawned on me that 2 Timothy 3:16 could easily be interpreted to make the opposite point. In it we have the inspiration of God. But that inspiration seems to be almost useless on its own. The inspiration is dependent on righteous teaching, reproof, correction and instruction.