Scriptural arguments against sola scriptura. 1/?

First, I do not deny the below:

The bible is the inspired word of God, and so if the scripture conflicts with some tradition the tradition is wrong and the scripture is correct.

Sola Scriptura is more then this 2/?

Sola Scriptura means something like:

ONLY scripture is authoritative for doctrine and inspired so that it’s free from error. Church traditions, creeds, rulings by a church council, or other traditions are never authoritative or caused by God to be free of error. 3/?

Sidenote: someone might support sola scriptura and believe some creeds or councils are actually free from error, but that they are free from from error is not due to inspiration, but some sort of a happy accident or due to careful application of human reason to interpretation 4/?

I want to say that at least some doctrines handed down verbally via tradition, or written in creeds, or decided by councils, were inspired by God. For 3 reasons 5/?

1.I want to protect the scriptural canon we have. The books we include in scripture were settled on by a church council. There is no list in scripture of the books that count as scripture... 6/?

1 cont. but I still want to say we are confident that no books were left out (or added in that should have been left out), so I think we should make room for at least this one tradition (what counts as scripture) to be an inspired tradition not present in scripture. 7/?

2. The scriptures treat certain traditions as authoritative! For example, the pre-pauline credal statement Paul quotes in I COR 15, isn’t in any of the books of the bible, it’s a verbal tradition handed down. 8/?

2. cont When Christ is conversing with the pharisees he treats certain historical and legal traditions as part of the canon he’s dealing with even if they’re not explicitly in our old testament books. 9/?

2. cont. Matthew says of Christ that it was prophecized the messiah would be called a nazarene, but it doesn’t actually correspond to a specific old testament passage. Please note I’m not a biblical scholar by any stretch, I need to do more research on the latter 2 examples 10/?

2. cont. There’s also the Thesalonians passage catholics will use. 2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 11/?

3. is more practical. There are a lot of doctrines that are super important, and have been considered heresy to deny historically, that are harder to get from scripture then I once thought.... 12/?

3. Cont. A lot of stuff relating to the trinity and incarnation. Christ being of one substance with the father. The Holy Spririt being a distinct person from the father and son, Holy Spirit being the same substance as the father and the son. 13/?

3 cont. To be entirely frank, I’ve found in arguing with Unitarians, some jehova’s witnesess, mormons, atheists on reddit who are more familliar with scripture then me, that even getting to christ’s divinity isn’t quite as clear from just scripture as you think. 14/?

3 cont. Now, I don’t want to be misunderstood here! I totally accept all these things, I think they’re 100% true! 15/?

3 cont. But… I think a lot of them we believe not because of our careful study of the scripture, but because even protestants deep down recognize that certain traditions were inspired by God and preserved through church history. 16/?

3 cont. I think most people, just going off the scriptures, would not have independently arrived at these same traditions. I don’t think any of these traditions are necessary for salvation, everything needed for salvation is in the scriptures. 17/?

3 cont... But, not everything protected by God from error is in the scriptures. The end. 18/18