“If “sola scriptura” were actually words in the Bible, then I would be more open to the idea of it being credible.”
So your argument is that since its not in the Bible the concept isn’t biblical. Therefor we should look to other writings which are also not in the Bible.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
My argument is that Protestants are often using this argument of saying that we can only look at things that are in the Bible based on “sola scriptura”, but since that’s NOT in the Bible, it doesn’t make any sense.
If it was that important to God to have us not be confused, then why didn’t the Holy Spirit include it?
In other words, to me it comes across as another man-made doctrine...just the sort of thing Martin Luther was against. So I don’t understand the premise in the first place.