An Argument that Disciplina Arcani which shows that the Early Church did not teach Sola ScripturaKey:S: The Early Church thought Scripture is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.F: The Early Church thought Scripture was formally sufficient and needs no additional informational context from external sources and traditions in teaching all that is necessary for salvation in the practical life of the believer.D: The Early Church had a practice of keeping certain teachings about sacraments, theology, and spiritual practices, not explicitly and formally detailed in Scripture, restricted to initiated baptized members that they considered essential, sacred, and fundamental to know and understand for ones salvation and full sacramental participation in the faith, e.g. the Eucharist, Baptism, the doctrine of the Trinity, and liturgical rites.Argument:P1: SFIf the Early Church thought Sola Scriptura is true (S), then they thought Scripture is formally sufficient (F), .P2: DFYet, the practice of the Disciplina Arcani (D), which involved withholding and obscuring teachings considered essential and sacred from uninitiated members, implies that Scripture is not formally sufficient.P3: DThe existence of the Disciplina Arcani (D) and its focus on teachings considered essential and sacred is historically documented, and based their understanding of binding scriptural imperatives, e.g. Matt 7:6, 1 Cor 3:1-2, Heb 5:12-14, and Tobit 12:7, indicating that the early Church practiced a form of doctrinal and liturgical secrecy above and beyond what the written scriptures formally express.Conclusion: SThis historical context suggests that the principle of Sola Scriptura, as understood today, would have been foreign to the early Christian community, which relied on esoteric traditions to articulate and inform some of the most sacred and essential aspects of the faith. That is, the Early Church would not have known or operated on Sola Scriptura or the Formal Sufficiency it implies.Deduction:SF (Premise, as many Protestants attest that Sola Scriptura implies the formal sufficiency of scripture)DF (Premise, supported by historical and theological evidence)D (Premise, historically verified)F (2, 3 MP)S (1,4 MT)QEDI would have to conclude, based on this line of reasoning, that Sola Scriptura is a doctrinal innovation, and as such, should be rejected.