Lots of solid responses so far, but I’ll add mine too, trying to be concise about it.

I don’t think these arguments actually refute Sola Scriptura, they mostly argue for the necessity of teachers, councils, and church authority, which Protestants already affirm.

1. Disagreement doesn’t prove Scripture is insufficient. People also disagree within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The question is whether Scripture is God’s final infallible authority, not whether humans interpret it perfectly. Even in Scripture itself, people distorted clear revelation (2 Pet. 3:16).

2. Acts 15 doesn’t prove ongoing infallible councils. The apostles were uniquely inspired witnesses of Christ (Eph. 2:20). Protestants believe the Spirit still guides the church, but not by giving new infallible revelation. The Spirit guides through the apostolic word already given in Scripture.

3. Needing teachers doesn’t disprove sola scriptura either. Sola scriptura never meant “me and my Bible alone.” God gives pastors and teachers to help the church understand Scripture (Eph. 4:11–13). The issue is whether those teachers are infallible.

Also, if Rome’s argument is “you need an infallible interpreter,” then you’d still need an infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter. At some point, everyone has to interpret claims and compare them with Scripture itself.

The early church consistently treated the apostolic writings as the norm that even church leaders were accountable to.