u/Itchy_Eyes77

I'm a Protestant, but these arguments against Sola Scriptura are swaying me.

1. The Bible is not sufficiently detailed for the human intellect to reliably work out the truth about faith and morals in detail, as evidenced by intelligent, intellectually honest, well-informed Protestants disagreeing about a ton of stuff. God wouldn't want us to be confused about divine revelation, or why reveal it? Therefore, God must have given us an authority that can break ties on arguments over important doctrine. This authority has to be something that consistently says the same thing, because the truth can't be self-contradictory, so the body of Protestant denominations is out.
2. The Bible talks about how the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem were guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore were able to give not advice, but a binding decision (Acts 15:1-29). To believe in sola scriptura, we have to believe that the Holy Spirit eventually stopped guiding the Church to truth about matters of doctrine (remember that the Holy Spirit can't be guiding the whole body of Christians, because Christians disagree on a ton of important points). This is impossible, however, because Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the Apostles forever (John 14:16). Therefore the Church (presumably the Catholic or perhaps Orthodox Church) still has the binding authority it had at the Council of Jerusalem.
3. The Bible gives multiple cases of people not understanding Scripture until Jesus or an Apostle explains it to them (Luke 24:13-32, Acts 8:30-31), which seems to be at least hinting away from sola scriptura.

The argument "but the Catholic Church is corrupt, so it can't be infallible" doesn't work because Matthew 23:1-3 and John 11:49-51 show that (EDIT: people guilty of lots of wrongdoing, or even people who from their human point of view are making a fallacious and evil argument in the moment,) can be divinely inspired.

What do you all think? Thank you for reading this.

(For context, I haven't listened to Sunya yet.)

Theorizing that there will be a climatic moment where the walls of Antimai come down. The Acts have multiple references to the concept of walls coming down:

"Will you carry us to Eden/someone to believe in/breaking down the walls that kept us locked away?" (If All Goes Well)

"Cold have I calloused, but these walls are coming down" (Melpomene)

"If you're stuck in your problems like a pile of bricks/You've gotta knock down the wall" (The Flame (Is Gone))

Further, Act V ends with Hunter burning down the Dime - defeating the villain by destroying a building associated with him in a huge, cathartic showpiece.

Then, TDH's next big story arc takes place in a walled city ruled by a despotic government. The walls are a symbol of the city; they keep the desperate poor out and the oppressed citizens in. It seems a priori likely enough that such a story would involve the walls coming down, and TDH has precedent for a) walls coming down and b) defeating the villain through destroying their buildings.